ietf-nntp Section 7.1 - GREETING step.

Russ Allbery rra at stanford.edu
Mon Jul 24 13:41:10 PDT 2000


David Riley <David.Riley at software.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:27:06PM -0500, Stan O. Barber wrote:
>> David Riley wrote:

>>> I think we should consider present the 200 greeting code if IHAVE transit
>>> ability is available on the server to the client.  The response from MODE
>>> READER indicates specifically whether the user may use POST or not.  I
>>> would suggest the text be changed to something along the lines of.

>> I am not sure if this is consistent with RFC977. Comments from others
>> on this are welcome.

innd always either sends 200 or rejects the connection; innd can never
send 201 (at least that I can see in a quick check).  The 200/201
distinction only shows up from nnrpd.

If transit returned 201 on the basis of a reader connection not being
allowed to use IHAVE, I would expect a lot of news readers to get confused
and think that they weren't allowed to post, even if MODE READER returned
200.

> This archive is not uptodate.  I think it lacks messages past November
> 1999.

I believe the mbox file available on the ftp site has everything.

> Which leaves the original question -- why the change to 504?

Copying INN, probably.  In this case, I think INN is wrong.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list