ietf-nntp Draft 20 pre-release 2

Russ Allbery rra at stanford.edu
Thu Oct 9 16:58:30 PDT 2003


Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:

> You do not HAVE to send either.  Its recommended for the client to
> announce itself to the server using one or the other, but not required.

RFC 2821, section 4.1.1.1:

   [...] In any event, a client MUST issue HELO or EHLO before starting a
   mail transaction.

> I just looked back at the list archive and there have only been about
> 5-6 active members over the past year, give or take the odd post.  I'm
> really curious to see what shakes out of the woodwork once a WG last
> call and IESG review takes place.  I think the doc is fairly solid, but
> with so few voices, who know?

Yeah, I'm rather worried about that myself.  It's one of the reasons why I
hate to revisit old discussions, but I do understand that the security
extensions cannot be cached.  It's also part of the reason why this has
taken so long.

In the interest of expediency, I'm willing to go along with just outlawing
all caching of the results of LIST EXTENSIONS.  I really want to get this
document out the door.  I think we'll catch grief about it from news
authors during last call, but it may be less grief than we catch from IESG
review, and whatever gets the document done faster is better as far as I'm
concerned.

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



More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list