[NNTP] Revisiting POST as a separate capability

[Russ Allbery]

Mark found POST and LISTGROUP as READER modifiers but OVER and HDR as
separate capabilities confusing.  After tracing the discussion on this, we
did that because we didn't want POST as a separate capability with a
dependency on READER that wasn't represented in the protocol.

I'd like to take another step back from that.  Does anyone remember why we
felt like advertising POST without READER didn't make any sense?  I seem
to recall that we had that discussion, but I can't find it in the mailing
list archives (it may have been part of that huge thread about the initial
LIST EXTENSIONS rethink when we weren't changing subject headers).  I'm
not aware of any servers currently that allow POST without the READER
commands intentionally, but it's certainly a sensible configuration and I
believe possible in INN.

Could we talk this over again and make sure we understand why we're doing
things this way?  It looks a bit simpler and orthogonal to have all of
these capabilities be independent, even if we have to insert some language
about how advertising LISTGROUP without READER doesn't make any sense.

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