ietf-nntp Virtual hosts in NNTP servers

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Joao Prado Maia said:
>> Either use two different ports, or publish USER/PASS pairs for each server.
>> That is, "if you want server 2, specify user '2', password '2'; otherwise
>> you will get server 1".
>> 
>> Anything else will require adding new features to clients.
> 
> Exactly, hence my question. Is that requirement something that bad ? I 
> mean, we are already talking about adding SASL capabilities to the 
> protocol, so why not adding another feature that might be beneficial ?

SASL meets a clear need that can't be added another way. It's also being
added as a separate extension, not as part of the main protocol.

Nothing stops you defining your own extension, but is anyone going to use
it? I've never heard of anyone needing this before, which argues it's
likely to be not that popular.

Defining the extension is the trivial bit. Getting people to implement it
is the hard bit.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |