[NNTP] [2501] Reader commands in transit servers and vice-versa

[Russ Allbery]

Charles Lindsey <chl at clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive at demon.net> writes:

>> In case we ever have more transit commands in the core specification,
>> do we want a separate capability for IHAVE? Or do we see this (IHAVE
>> but not other transit commands) as an unlikely enough case to ignore?

> Yes, when IHAVE is available in reader mode, I would like to see a
> capability to tell me so.

That's what the TRANSIT capability does.

Given that IHAVE is at present the *only* transit command, I'm wondering
if it might be more future-proof to just call the TRANSIT capability IHAVE
instead.  What do people feel about that?

If we did that, we could also potentially take Andrew's simplification
proposal, at least to some degree, and reduce matters to three cases
(reader commands supported, reader commands supported after MODE READER,
reader commands not supported).  But regardless of whether we went that
route, I think renaming the capability may be a good idea.

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