[NNTP] LISTGROUP

[Peter Robinson]

Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> wrote:

> Charles Lindsey <chl at clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> > But it would make more practical sense for it to be the first article in
> > the range. Surely this is easily arranged, given the need to do some
> > implementation work for this anyway.
> 
> The worry that I have about doing this is that it makes it look like the
> current article pointer should also stop at the end of the range,

I don't share that particular worry.  In GROUP, the article pointer
doesn't 'stop at the end' of the reported high water mark if more
articles arrive.

> and *that* is both unusual and possibly a pain to implement given that
> it's a concept not previously found in the protocol.

I do share that concern.

[...]
 
> I'm not particularly enamored of this idea.  Very little uses the current
> article pointer in practice these days, and this adds some complexity to
> the description without a lot of benefit.

That (scrapping this idea) is fine with me as long as we're clear about
it in the spec.

Regards,

Peter