ietf-nntp Draft 17 pre-2
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org
Sat Mar 1 08:34:16 PST 2003
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I can't think of a situation in which it would be useful to use it and
> where the information returned would actually be reliable.
As it stands, I entirely agree that there's no benefit to LIST
OVERVIEW.FMT (hmm...does anybody have a client that uses it?).
> I could see cases where it would be useful to know what fields one can
> expect from overview, particularly in the area of allowing negative
> assertions (if Content-Type is not present in the OVER response, the
> article is guaranteed to not contain it, that sort of thing). But I don't
> see how we get there from LIST OVERVIEW.FMT.
Agreed.
Potentially this is sufficiently useful that we should aim for it, though?
It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult. For example, we could
return the header name alone (with no colon) to indicate that the header
did not exist.
--
Jeffrey M. Vinocur
jeff at litech.org
More information about the ietf-nntp
mailing list