[NNTP] LISTGROUP

[Kai Henningsen]

ken at oceana.com (Ken Murchison)  wrote on 23.03.05 in <4241E872.5000006 at oceana.com>:

> Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > "Andrew - Supernews" <andrew at supernews.net> writes:
> >
> >>>>>>>"Ken" == Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >> Ken> Alternatively, we can stipulate that the range parameter can
> >> Ken> only be used if a group is also specified:
> >
> >
> >> Ken> LISTGROUP [group [range]]
> >
> >
> >>This (as Russ also said) seems simplest from a compatibility
> >>perspective. But it's logically broken in that you don't know what the
> >>valid range is until you actually enter the group.
> >
> >
> > Why is that logically broken?  You know what group you're dealing with in
> > any case, so it's easy to add the group to the command even if you're
> > already in the group.  (And I don't think it's the case that you don't
> > know the range before entering the group; the most useful range on group
> > entry would be NNN-, where NNN was the last message read by the client in
> > that group plus one.)
> >
> > On the other hand, maybe this conversation implies that just adding this
> > feature isn't the best idea.
> >
> > (I'm a lot more concerned with the merits adding a new feature at this
> > point than I am with making LISTGROUP mandatory, actually.)
>
> Which is why I suggested that we could leave LISTGROUP as optional and
> the range feature optional as well.  So we make "LISTGROUP" its own
> capability with an optional "RANGE" argument.

Sounds like far too many knobs for far too little benefit to me.

MfG Kai