[NNTP] RE: Last Call: 'Network News Transfer Protocol' to Proposed Standard

[Ken Murchison]

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> In <20050525104903.GK20064 at finch-staff-1.thus.net> "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive at demon.net> writes:
> 
> 
> 
>>Making a quick scan, it contains the following:
> 
> 
>>XHDR                 - replaced by HDR in core document
>>XOVER                - replaced by OVER in core document
> 
> 
> Yes, but XHDR and XOVER are hard coded into too many existing agents, so
> servers will need to provide them for many years to come (probably as just
> synonyms for HDR and OVER). RFC 2980 remains as the justification for
> their existence. I would expect servers that provide them to include
> XHDR and XOVER in their CAPABILITIES.

Actually I disagree.  What would be the point of advertising XHDR/XOVER? 
  If a client is updated to use CAPABILITIES, then it better damn well 
update itself to use HDR/OVER.  Any legacy client will get no benefit 
from "non-standard" extensions being advertised, because they won't be 
using CAPABILITIES anyways.

Obviously, any server which provides HDR/OVER probably SHOULD also 
support XHDR/XOVER as synonyms for backwards capability.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison     Oceana Matrix Ltd.
Software Engineer     21 Princeton Place
716-662-8973 x26      Orchard Park, NY 14127
--PGP Public Key--    http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp