[NNTP] Revisiting POST as a separate capability

[Peter Robinson]

Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> 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 see no good reason to outlaw POST-without-READER in either the
protocol or the text.  I think that CAPABILITY options should be avoided
where possible and (because?) different capabilities should be
independent where possible.  Allowing POST-without-READER to be
implemented but not advertised is worse if anything, since it encourages
the old trial and error approach if it gets used at all.

[...]

> 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 agree.

Peter