[NNTP] Revisiting POST as a separate capability

[Russ Allbery]

Charles Lindsey <chl at clerew.man.ac.uk> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:

>> 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.

> Surely the point is that a server that does not advertise READER is a
> transit-only server,

Why would you assume that?  That's certainly one possible use for it, but
all that not advertising READER means is that the reader commands
(ARTICLE, GROUP, etc.) are not supported.

There's nothing inconsistent about supporting POST without supporting the
reader commands.

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