[NNTP] LIST EXTENSIONS (again)

[Mark Crispin]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I don't know what gave you 380, but it was broken by any documentation the
> NNTP community has ever produced.  Either it was broken as written, or
> it's some highly obscure or experimental server from before AUTHINFO, or
> something else strange was going on there.

Support for 380 and 480 appeared in my code between April 14, 1994 and 
August 1, 1995; and apparently 380 came first.

I respectfully point out that RFC 2980 was not issued until October 2000. 
Therefore, it can not be claimed that 380 was "broken" prior to that time.

I agree that 480 makes much more sense than 380; I have no intention of 
defending 380.  On the other hand, the fact that 381 exists tends to 
suggest that, at least at some point in history, 380 existed.

Actually, 580 makes more sense than 480.  Ditto 481 and 482.  Someone 
evidentally misunderstands the meaning of 4xx response codes.  I've kept 
silent on this problem because NNTP is so broken in other respects that 
are more important to fix.  The world will continue to survive even if 
NNTP continues to misuse of 4xx.

-- Mark --

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