[NNTP] Revisiting POST as a separate capability

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Peter Robinson said:
> 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.

But different capabilities *aren't* always independent.

I can see the arguments for POST without READER. I'm not yet convinced but,
as I said a moment ago, if the consensus is to allow it then I won't feel
particularly bothered.

>> 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.

But here I don't. Having LISTGROUP without READER doesn't make sense.
Therefore it is far better to implement the restriction by making LISTGROUP
be an argument to the READER capability than to have to special-case it in
the text.

-- 
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            |                            |