[NNTP] Draft 26 pre-2

[Ade Lovett]

On May 11, 2005, at 00:54 , Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> A *long* time ago the 211 response to LISTGROUP was changed to be  
> the same
> as the 211 response to GROUP.

If LISTGROUP had a single required argument, as with GROUP, then that  
would make sense -- you could argue that both commands are different  
ways to enter a group, setting the current article pointer to the  
first available in that group, the only difference being that  
LISTGROUP had a further multiline response dumping out the list of  
"available" article numbers.

That's not the case, however.  Current use of both GROUP and, more  
importantly, LISTGROUP, is well-defined (I've spoken with people  
involved in one of the more popular Windows-based newsreaders), and  
certainly any text after the relevant 211 response line is simply  
thrown away.

Indeed, with the output of GROUP being a notable, and unfortunate  
exception, I grew up with clients that merely parsed the three-digit  
response code and threw away the rest of the initial response line.

The proposed changes do nothing to improve the usability of LISTGROUP  
in the wild, whilst placing considerable constraints on those server  
authors that have to deal with a *LARGE* number of simultaneous  
client connections.  In such cases, seemingly harmless changes to  
output can generate *HUGE* implementation headaches, for essentially  
no gain.

> 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.

I so request such debate.

-aDe