ietf-nntp LISTGROUP

[Russ Allbery]

Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:
> 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.

INN also doesn'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.

I agree.  That appears to be the current state of -14 (I haven't looked at
-15) yet.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>