[NNTP] Re: MODE READER

[Mark Crispin]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>> 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.

Yes.  If MODE READER is required, there should be an extension that 
indicates that fact (or an extension to indicate that MODE READER is not 
required -- I don't care).

The cases then degenerate into:

1) MODE READER isn't required
2) MODE READER is required, but you must authenticate before you can do
    any reading.  The extension for MODE READER is not listed until after
    authentication.
3) MODE READER is required, and authentication is not required before you
    can do any reading.  The extension for MODE READER is listed.

>> 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.

Why?  MIME did it.  IMAP did it.

These are standards which are arguably quite a bit technically superior 
to, and much less messy than, NNTP.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.