[NNTP] Re: NNTP working group status

[Russ Allbery]

Mark Crispin <MRC at CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:

> I admit that this is twisting the knife (I really do owe you that
> sixpack), but there *is* a way that you can make the decision for the
> entire working group without anyone criticizing your actions.

> That would be if you were to declare that the NNTPv2 version of INN will
> never require MODE READER no matter how it is configured.  This would
> remove the need for MODE READER, and move it into the "compatibility
> with pre-NNTPv2 servers" document.

Well, I personally agree with the messages that Andrew has sent on the
topic -- this isn't just a question of a particular implementation choice,
but rather is fairly fundamental to the way that NNTP works.  Diablo
doesn't require MODE READER just because Diablo doesn't even allow the
feeder and reader components to run on the same *system* without a lot of
careful work.

That being said, and regardless of the merits of that argument, the amount
of time that I think it would require to implement something exceeds the
amount of time I have available to spend on INN in the forseeable future.
I wish that weren't the case, but right now INN is a hobby rather than a
job and I just don't have the resources to devote to trying to figure out
a good solution.

Certainly if someone came up with some killer patches that just made it
all work properly, that would be great and I'd happily accept them, but
I think it's unlikely for the reasons that Andrew stated.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>