[NNTP] Revisiting POST as a separate capability

[Ken Murchison]

Russ Allbery wrote:

> 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.

I'm guessing the distinction was made because POST and LISTGROUP we're 
once considered optional commands, where OVER and HDR were considered 
extensions.

I have no problem giving POST and LISTGROUP their own capabilities.  In 
fact, didn't LISTGROUP have its own until someone (perhaps me) suggsted 
otherwise?

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp