ietf-nntp PAT - it's ugly, lets leave it out of base NNTP

Lee Kindness lkindness at csl.co.uk
Fri Nov 17 07:38:56 PST 2000


Charles Lindsey writes:
 > I wasn't using space as alternation. What would YOU expect to be
 > recognised given
 > 	(X)PAT Subject 123- *foo,bar bar,baz* ?

 [ and big snips from other mails too ]

I cannot believe that everyone is getting so worked-up about
shoehorning PAT into the NNTP specification. It is clear that it has
major issues:

 1. It doesn't match the use of wildmats in the other commands.
 2. It has issues with OVER regards the handling of whitespace.

Why don't we leave PAT/XPAT out of the new specification? This is an
option since it's not in RFC-977. Otherwise the new specification will 
never see the light of day!

PAT could then be documented as an NNTP extension. Is PAT even needed?
Is it widely used?

I remember sending the same email a couple of months back...

-- 
 Lee Kindness             lkindness at csl.co.uk
 Software Developer



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list