ietf-nntp Draft 17 pre-2
Clive D. W. Feather
clive at on-the-train.demon.co.uk
Thu Feb 27 09:13:06 PST 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In message <3E5BD31A.2ED32C9E at oceana.com>, Ken Murchison
<ken at oceana.com> writes
>> I think this is going to depend some on what extensions one is using. In
>> another five years, for example, I certainly won't expect clients to send
>> LIST EXTENSIONS before trying OVER.
>
>Why not? It might be safe to assume that all servers implement OVER,
>but what's the harm in checking? Is there some technical reason why
>clients would/should/might not want to do option discovery, or is this
>just an argument being made by potentially lazy authors (not saying that
>Russ is lazy)?
Code option 1:
* Call LIST EXTENSIONS
* Check for 202 return code
* Check output for OVER
* Set a flag
* As required:
* If flag set:
* Call OVER
* Check for 224 versus 423 versus 503
Code option 2:
* As required:
* Call OVER
* Check for 224 versus 423 versus 500
Code option 2bis:
* Set a flag
* As required:
* If flag set:
* Call OVER
* Check for 224 versus 423 versus 500
Which would *you* implement?
- --
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <clive at demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet | Home: <clive at davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Thus plc | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk 2.0.5
iQEVAwUBPl5HISNAHP3TFZrhAQFaOgf/fzltnL9TK4Q9JSF0VldJkjF44v58rAX3
mw90C6PNCLTg7nyZyek339mxnpSqLctS7+bMLD0VuTgfJ9pYhQextBcGa7dROKnk
X0sC6k8i08D/OSYjcl6MS8uakv3nhwbeHYFL1cLIyGbCehaJ/HiE9MKq7awYpfPX
CCtI0gorJH/sOygWfokPWn1LjIP9dLJWKOONuKj9W/0cPlkfvNyKP/vwMsjZMoMI
SvVfvjtZbK6l+/dqfAY7jYhyazo0Rz3ui4HY2nx+gb6dDVYCeCPD49z5T5L0vKBv
YajZP/0nGodxxKxkkjuQkvg1OAuBY9UJGnrQ8oBwZ9MUE238NLQlPw==
=TXPp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list