[NNTP] Re: MODE READER

[Charles Lindsey]

In <87d5ys3ob0.fsf at windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:

>Note that most servers have eliminated the need for MODE READER by
>ensuring that one of the following conditions is true:

> * The same server process is used for both transit and reader
>   connections.  I think this design makes it considerably harder to
>   maintain the server, for a wide host of reasons, but admittedly those
>   reasons are internal to server design.

> * There are no connecting hosts which are both allowed to issue transit
>   commands and are allowed to read news.  This is the common case and is
>   the reason why one can completely ignore MODE READER with nearly all
>   INN installations and get away with it.

> * The transit server is running on the separate port reserved for that
>   purpose (433) and the reader-only server is running on 119.

>Of the solutions, I actually prefer the last one, since I've encountered
>rare but significant instances where I really needed to give both transit
>and reader permissions to the same client host.  It's obnoxious in that
>NNTP consumes an extra low-numbered port, which is really highly rude of
>it, but the damage (in terms of the port registration) was already done
>many years ago.

Does our present draft document the use of port 433? And if not should it
do so? If it does, then the last solution seems the cleanest.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5