[NNTP] Revisiting POST as a separate capability

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Ken Murchison said:
> 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?

<http://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/ietf-nntp/2005-January/000806.html>
and work both ways along the thread.

OVER and HDR can be used by message-ID, so it's practical to use them
on a server that doesn't provide READER commands. There's also the problem
that OVER has an argument.

LISTGROUP only makes sense as part of READER.

We didn't want servers to *advertise* POST without READER, even if they
implement it.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
Thus plc            |                            |