[NNTP] LIST EXTENSIONS (again)

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Ken Murchison said:
>> Um, just out of interest, doesn't this mean that the argument of a 283
>> response is insecure as well?
> Yes.  Its designed this way because the client may not yet know what 
> security layer(s) the server has selected.  Just like TLS, the security 
> layer can't take effect until negotiation has completed.

But that's nothing to do with the content of the 283, is it? It's simply
that the client needs to be told that negotiation is complete. So if we did
split it as I suggest, the 180 would give that message.

>> Can I make a proposal here? It might sound odd, but bear with me.
[...]
> We'd be straying from the beaten path (IMAP, POP, SMTP) with this 
> proposal which is something that I'd personally like to avoid.

Though Mark says that this is the way he wished he'd done it in IMAP.
Are we never allowed to learn from our predecessors' mistakes?

-- 
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            |                            |