[NNTP] Draft 26 pre-2

[Andrew - Supernews]

>>>>> "Clive" == Clive D W Feather <clive at demon.net> writes:

 >> I reiterate my objection to messing with the GROUP command at this
 >> extremely late stage.

 Clive> What about the response to LISTGROUP? That also requires the
 Clive> group name to be stored.

I don't care about that either way (as I said before).

I'm not objecting to changing GROUP because of implementation
considerations. I'm objecting to making trivial pointless changes to
one of the most important commands in the specification in a draft
which should have been long since finished. We SHOULD NOT BE PISSING
ABOUT WITH STUFF WITHOUT CAUSE this late in the proceedings.

The arguments in favour of changing GROUP amount to little more than
"because we can". Nothing of real advantage to anyone is being
proposed (unlike the LISTGROUP range argument, which has the potential
to be hugely useful to clients and servers).

-- 
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com