[NNTP] draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-02

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Andrew - Supernews said:
> What I'm saying is that I know of no cases in which it makes sense for
> a server to return a deferral after the article body in either IHAVE
> or TAKETHIS.

So your position is that the specification(s) should say something like:

    If the server is unable to process the article immediately, or
    runs into any problem when processing it, it will reject the
    article and the client MUST NOT attempt to re-send it *EVER AGAIN*.

If you disagree with this, then you're saying there needs to be a "defer"
code.

If you agree with this then I'm afraid I simply can't support you. This is
a prime opportunity for articles to get lost (and don't mention the inkblot
algorithm; there are plenty of bottlenecks in the system and this RFC
doesn't only apply to global-Usenet).

-- 
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            |                            |