ietf-nntp Issue: empty groups

[Rich Salz]

>What I am trying to say though, is that it wasn't defined in the spec,
>so the implementors decided to do something that appealed to them.  I
>do not want to get into a holy war about which of them were right and
>wrong, but I do want to see an explanation for that section that makes
>sense.  To me, first=last=count=0 only makes sense if there never have
>been any articles in that group.

Not quite right.  At this point, if it's common practice that is not
documented in RFC 977, then all this group could/should do is say "this
is how to do it."  A note can explain that it's kindaa stupid, that
the original reason was lost, etc., etc.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it, it doesn't make sense, or if
you have to add extra code.  If the common practice for some undefined
behavior is "x", then "x" is what you must do.
	/r$