ietf-nntp Section 7.1 - GREETING step.

[David Riley]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 03:25:15PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew Gierth <andrew at erlenstar.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >>>>>> "David" == David Riley <David.Riley at software.com> writes:
> 
> >  David> My point is that if the server will support IHAVE or POST, it
> >  David> should respond with a 200.  Currently, it seems that a transit
> >  David> server which does not support POST should respond with 201.  I
> >  David> believe that such transit server should be able to respond
> >  David> with 200.
> 
> > Such a transit server does not conform to the current draft anyway (the
> > reader commands are not optional).
> 
> Hm.  That's an interesting question.  There's certainly existing practice
> pointing at the ability to implement a transit server without a reader
> component and just returning unimplemented errors for all the reader
> commands, so I think that should be reflected in the draft.

I agree.  Cyclone, Diablo, NNTPRelay, Earthquake all exist to mainly
provide transit ability.  (Though Diablo might support some reader
functionality as well).

-- 
David Riley
David.Riley at software.com - Software.com, Inc. (Vancouver, B.C.)