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