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