[NNTP] Status and issue resolutions

Ade Lovett ade at lovett.com
Fri May 20 00:27:05 PDT 2005


On May 19, 2005, at 19:50 , Russ Allbery wrote:
> Should we suddenly develop a consensus that this change is fine,
> particularly given that LISTGROUP's 211 response will continue to  
> match
> GROUP's, that would change my mind.

Having read and re-read both the proposed changes, the relevant  
sections of code in a number of news server packages, and spoken to a  
number of people intimate with the workings of the more common  
newsreaders, I remove my objections to the proposed changes to  
LISTGROUP.

To be absolutely clear, I have no issues with the usage text as  
defined in section 6.1.2.1 of http://www.davros.org/nntp-texts/ 
draft26.pre-3.html#listgroup

My concerns with making the "group" argument optional to GROUP  
remain, however.  I don't believe this buys anything -- indeed, if  
time were permitting, I would give serious consideration to  
completely reworking GROUP/LISTGROUP -- the two commands are similar  
yet subtly different I cannot help but feel this will come back to  
bite us in the future.

-aDe




More information about the ietf-nntp mailing list