[NNTP] Re: NNTP working group status

[Mark Crispin]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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.

The only "fundamental to NNTP" is RFC 977.  Everything else is folklore.

If I wanted to be a real jerk, I could say that MODE READER violates RFC 
977 because it adds a client requirement that is not in RFC 977; and 
therefore the inclusion of MODE READER to the new NNTP base document 
violates the charter.

I'm a jerk, but not that much of a jerk.

On the other hand, the conclusion seems right.

> 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.

If "death to MODE READER in NNTPv2" is agreed, perhaps Ken and I might be 
talkable into offering some cycles to beat INN into submission for NNTPv2. 
I don't know if we can promise that the result will be pretty.

-- Mark --

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