[NNTP] Re: MODE READER

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Andrew - Supernews said:
> OK, it occurs to me that we can simplify that a lot by allowing the
> LIST EXTENSIONS output to indicate one of three explicit conditions:
> 
> 1) that MODE READER isn't necessary (which will be a very common case)
> 2) that MODE READER really is necessary (but might fail)
> 3) that MODE READER isn't possible, and nor are any reader commands (which
> will be true for transit servers with no reader support at all, or where
> the connecting IP can never obtain reader access)

What you mean by 3 is "MODE READER will fail with 502", right? Number 2
means that reading commands can fail "401 MODE-READER" while number 1
means they won't.

> with the absence of any of the above indications, the existing rule
> applies (that the server is allowed to reject reader commands if MODE
> READER is not issued first).

Um, let's do it right: the server will be required to include this
information in the LIST EXTENSIONS response.

>  Mark> Better would be something like the following, which uses an
>  Mark> IMAP-like mechanism to carry capabilities in responses, and
>  Mark> flushes MODE READER:
> 
> There are two fundamental objections to that. First is that you're
> assigning semantics to fields which in the deployed specification are
> explicitly designated as containing arbitrary non-semantic text.

Right: even if it's unlikely in practice, that is not a foundation to build
a standard on.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |