ietf-nntp Virtual hosts in NNTP servers

[Joao Prado Maia]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

> 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.
> 

Indeed, and that's why I'm trying to lobby for this new feature. But you 
are right, if it wasn't implemented until now it's probably not needed.

Oh well...

Joao