ietf-nntp Section 7.1 - GREETING step.

[Paul Overell]

In article <FyAqnK.JFE at clw.cs.man.ac.uk>, Charles Lindsey
<chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk> writes
>In <200007251708.KAA08690 at karoshi.ucsd.edu> Brian Kantor <brian at UCSD.Edu> 
>writes:
>
>
>>>If, as far as the server can determine at the point of connection,
>>>neither IHAVE nor POST will be permitted during this session, the
>>>server returns a 201 response. Otherwise it returns a 200 response.
>>>Can everyone live with that ?
>
>>No, I think this is seriously flawed.  If a server returns a 200
>>but a subsequent POST fails, you've screwed the client.  201 indicates
>>ONLY the usability of the POST command.
>
>Well a logical solution would be to say
>       200     you may only read
>       201     you may POST
>       202     you may IHAVE
>       203     you may do BOTH
>
>Given that in practical situations clients are usually either in the
>reading business or in the relaying business, but rarely in both, what
>current clients would actually get confused if servers suddenly started
>behaving like that?
>

Turnpike.

Did you mean to reverse the meaning of 200/201?


Regards
-- 
Paul Overell                                             T U R N P I K E