ietf-nntp LISTGROUP

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Charles Lindsey said:
> P45-7	211 -> 211 n l h ggg {+ verbiage as in GROUP command}
> 	{I find it odd that the 211 response from LISTGROUP is not the
> 	same as the 211 response from GROUP; I also note that the model
> 	NNTP implementation provides the full set of parameters: e.g.
> 	    group comp.risks
> 	    211 1 562 562 comp.risks
> 	    listgroup comp.risks
> 	    211 1 562 562 comp.risks
> 	    562
> 	    . }

Demon's server doesn't output this material on a 211 response. Therefore I
assume that other servers don't.

This means that defining the 211 to match GROUP would be a significant
change, so I'm against it. Furthermore, the examples should *not* include
this data to avoid confusion.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 20 8371 4037
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |