ietf-nntp LISTGROUP

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Charles Lindsey said:
>> 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.
> 
> Either we do that, or we take the bull by the horns and make the change,
> at least at the "SHOULD" level. At least existing clients are not
> expecting it, so no harm there. The only problem arises when new clients
> see it in the standard, try to use it, and then encounter an old server
> that does not supply it. Can we live with that?

How does a client know that what follows the 211 is valid data ? Remember
that at present *anything* may follow, including data that looks correct
but isn't consistent with GROUP. I'd rather have a 212 response for this:
old clients which don't know about it ought to be treating this as success.
But then again, will old clients assume it's multiline ? Sigh. There should
have been a clear way to distinguish single- and multi-line responses in
the original design. Another "too late".

This is turning into a can of worms that I'd rather not open.

> What use are clients
> likely to use that information for?

And, especially given mandatory streaming, why wouldn't they just do a
GROUP first ?

-- 
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            |                            |