ietf-nntp DEBUG command (9xx)

[Charles Lindsey]

In <3981D17B.2DA1188C at verio.net> "Stan O. Barber" <sob at verio.net> writes:

>Based on this and other comment from you, then I would take it that you are in
>the group that says that X9X should never be presented by a server under normal
>circumstances.

May I suggest the following convention for X9X?

Such a response should NEVER be used as the only response to a command
(i.e. it should always be followed/preceded by the normal response).
Therefore, an implementation that simply ignores an X9X response as if it
had never been seen would still function correctly. In other words, an X9X
response is simply a comment from the server that might or might not be
'helpful' to a client.

The only problem I can see is if some X9X response was intended to be
followed by multiline stuff. That should probably be forbidden, except
between consenting adults.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email:     chl at clw.cs.man.ac.uk  Web:   http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9     Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7  65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5