ietf-nntp Another message from urs@akk.org about tin

[Lee Kindness]

In addition to this, I think it is important that the new spec
mandates this - intelligent/obvious - behaviour:

  All unrecognised 200 series codes should be assumed as
  success.

  All unrecognised 300 series codes should be assumed as
  notice to continue.

  All unrecognised 400 series codes should be assumed as
  temporary error.

  All unrecognised 500 series codes should be assumed as
  error.

Lee Kindness writes:
 > urs at akk.org writes (via Stan O. Barber):
 >  > tin threas all greetingcodes != 200 or 201 as an error:
 >  >       case OK_CANPOST:
 >  > #  ifndef NO_POSTING
 >  >          can_post = TRUE;
 >  > #  endif /* !NO_POSTING */
 >  >          break;
 >  > 
 >  >       case OK_NOPOST:
 >  >          can_post = FALSE;
 >  >          break;
 >  > 
 >  >       default:
 >  >          if (ret < 0) {
 >  >             error_message (_(txt_failed_to_connect_to_server), nntp_server);
 >  >          } else {
 >  >             error_message (line);
 >  >          }
 > 
 > tin is in error then. Given that 2?? signifies a successful command,
 > is it too much to assume that an unknown 2?? code should be treated as 
 > general success?
 > 
 > We shouldn't bastardise the new spec to match BROKEN 'current
 > practice'.