ietf-nntp LIST ACTIVE issues

[Russ Allbery]

8.6.1.2. Description (LIST ACTIVE)

  Yes, it is "last first status"; the current text is wrong.  The order is
  the opposite of the order returned by GROUP.  Historical wart.

  Right now, our description of other status strings says that they must
  all be specified somewhere, but it's fairly common to use them for
  various local extensions as well.  I propose the following alternate
  text:

    Other status strings MAY be used.  The definition of these other
    values and the circumstances under which they are returned may be
    specified in an extension or may be a local extension.  A client
    SHOULD treat an unrecognized status string as giving no information on
    the status of the group and how posts are handled.

  Should high and low be used here instead of first and last to be
  consistent with the terms used in GROUP?

  I would remove the sentence "That is indicated by the status code
  returned as part of the greeting." since it's not always accurate.  In
  particular, a client welcomed with 200 still won't normally be able to
  post to a group with status "n", but the server may have a way to allow
  certain authenticated clients to post to groups with "n" status (INN
  does, for example) and they may still show up as "n" (since the active
  file is often served directly from disk for speed rather than customized
  for each client).  I don't think that sentence really adds anything.

  It would be good to include some examples of non-"y" status in the
  examples.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>