ietf-nntp "Common NNTP Extensions" document updated

[Ade Lovett]

Vincent Archer writes:
>
>We do not want to remove NEWNEWS. Just to have the RFC not to mandate it
>for compliance, because then many NNTP sites will not be RFC-compliant, and
>once you've started down this road... why stop at one non-compliance?

So.  Let me see if I have this straight:

   1. there's a useful command, for pull-feeds, which can be made
	*vastly* less resource-intensive than anything using per-group
	overview files (like 'suck')
   2. the reference implementation, and INN, because they both use
	an amazingly inefficient methodology (even by 1980's standards,
	when things were much better[sic]) to achieve NEWNEWS, has
	meant that this command is considered 'evil-and-must-die'
   3. ..to the point that a large number of people, quite happily
	working away and getting the latest and greatest piece of
	bloat into the INN core, don't stop for 30 seconds and say
	"hey, this part of the implementation sucks.. we can make it
	 better by doing <this>"

Instead, they decide to simply pretend the problem isn't there, and
carry on in blissful ignorance in happy-bunny land.

Hey..  this sounds like a company we all know and love..

-aDe  [hmm.. slow week last week, only half a billion articles
       sent down the modem lines via NEWNEWS-based readers]

-- 
Ade Lovett, Demon Internet, Austin, Texas.