ietf-nntp LISTGROUP

[Clive D.W. Feather]

I wrote:
>>> 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.
[...]
> This is turning into a can of worms that I'd rather not open.

However, I've been thinking further.

We changed XOVER to OVER and fixed some problems with it.
We changed XPAT to HDR and fixed some problems with it.

We have this one nasty wart of the 211 response.

Why don't we change LISTGROUP to LISTARTICLES and require the 211 response
to be the same as that from GROUP. Then:
* implementations that made the GROUP and LISTGROUP 211 consistent just make
  the two commands the same;
* all other implementations handle LISTARTICLES as:
  - do GROUP with same argument, get response
  - if not 211, forward response and finish
  - do LISTGROUP with same argument, get response code
  - if not 211, forward LISTGROUP response and finish
  - otherwise forward GROUP response followed by the multiline output
    of LISTGROUP.

Thoughts ?

-- 
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            |                            |