ietf-nntp Virtual hosts in NNTP servers

[Sami Koskinen]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 03:51:49PM +0000, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Joao Prado Maia said:
>>> Why not just have users login with a fully qualified userid (eg,
>>> user at domain.com)?  This is what is typically done for IMAP and POP3.
>> Because I don't need this feature for authentication purposes. I basically 
>> just want to serve different content for each separate "virtual host".
> 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".

	Joao's situation rings a bell from my previous life. I was
	working for a large ISP that was selling virtual nntp
	service for other organizations, including other ISPs.
	Every virtual nntp server required an IP address, which
	was a nuisance.

	Now, if there is a news server that serves the Usenet News
	and there is a news server that serves only for the
	organization's internal news groups and the user having
	access for both the servers has the username of
	joe.random at example.com, the functionality can be only
	achieved by separating these two servers some way.
	The username just won't do in this case. It specifies
	the user who wants to use a service but it doesn't
	specify the service wanted.

	I'm not arguing it's wise to outsource your internal
	news service and possibly have it on a large system with
	other possibly similar customers, and have on top of it
	the usenet news on the same system. It still is something
	that a provider sells and customers buy. While it requires
	at present an ip address per virtual host it also
	makes the requirement of having to touch possibly a lot
	more of different boxes than just a news server making
	the administrator's head ache.

> Anything else will require adding new features to clients.

	Isn't that what the people writing those clients are
	doing overall: adding new features? :-)

--sami