[NNTP] Draft 26 pre-2

[Clive D.W. Feather]

Ade Lovett said:
>>> I reiterate my objection to messing with the GROUP command at this
>>> extremely late stage.
>> What about the response to LISTGROUP? That also requires the group  
>> name to
>> be stored.
> If you've changed that, too, (I've lost track of the drafts, diffs,  
> cut-n-pastes etc) then that's an issue as well.

A *long* time ago the 211 response to LISTGROUP was changed to be the same
as the 211 response to GROUP. Thus:

> As it stands right now, LISTGROUP most definitely does not need the  
> *human-readable* version of the group name to be stored.

It has for some time (it's been there for about a year; it was in draft 23).

> >>> listgroup
> <<< 412 no newsgroup has been selected
> >>> group supernews.test
> <<< 211 225 48045 48269 supernews.test group selected
> >>> listgroup
> <<< 211 article list follows

  <<< 211 225 48045 48269 supernews.test article list follows

> <<< 48045
>     [...]
> <<< .
> 
> Since there is a reasonable amount number of objections here, please  
> revert both GROUP and LISTGROUP to the original wording corresponding  
> to how things are right now.

The LISTGROUP change has been through at least one Last Call, so I'm loath
to change it back without debate and certainly not without Russ's input.

The GROUP change is, I believe, secondary to that. If the 211 response to
LISTGROUP is changed back then I accept the GROUP change is unsupportable.
Contrariwise, the only objection I've seen to GROUP is that it requires
storing the name, which LISTGROUP currently also requires.

-- 
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            |                            |