[NNTP] Revisiting POST as a separate capability

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Russ Allbery said:
>> 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.
> The problem with this is that if we ever want to add the range argument to
> LISTGROUP later on (since it's looking like specifying this may involve
> more details than we want to deal with at this stage), you end up with a
> very ugly way of specifying that in capabilities.

Slightly ugly, yes. But that's still better than the alternative in my
opinion.

Anyway, I thought the consensus was for making LISTGROUP mandatory.

> It also then looks odd.  We would be leaving LISTGROUP as the only command
> capability that isn't its own line in CAPABILITIES.  (That's more of an
> aesthetic argument, though, and isn't as strong.)

It's not at all strong - it's simply that this is the only case where one
command requires another to be present. If, say, BODY was to be optional
we'd have the same situation.

-- 
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            |                            |