[NNTP] LISTGROUP

[Peter Robinson]

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

> Can we get rid of that "estimated" from "estimated number of articles in
> the group"?

AIUI, that would be far too hard for large servers.

> As far as I am concerned, an estimated value is worse than useless, and
> an NNTPv2 compliant server should be required to give an exact value.

It is usually pretty useless for a client.  But IMO it's not worth the
compatibility issues to get rid of it, and servers will just ignore us
if we say it must be accurate.

> What is a "reported" high and low water mark as opposed to a high and low
> water mark?

I assume that's because the values will often change before the next
command is issued, but that applies to most things so I'd be happy to
drop the word 'reported'.

> In a range, how is 5-1 interpreted?

Surely as the empty set.

> If it is it an error, then there needs to be an error code.

I don't think it should be an error.

> Should lists of article numbers/ranges be allowed, e.g. 1-5,14-34,56- ?

I don't think so.

Regards,

Peter