[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