[NNTP] Additions to LIST commands

[Russ Allbery]

"Jeffrey M. Vinocur" <jeff at litech.org> writes:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> For the new LIST ACTIVE flags, no CAPABILITIES line should be required,
>> since the client doesn't need to know whether or not the server might
>> send these flags before the server sends them.  That was intentional in
>> how we defined LIST ACTIVE in RFC 3977:

>>    Other values for the status may exist; the definition of these other
>>    values and the circumstances under which they are returned may be
>>    specified in an extension or may be private to the server.  A client
>>    SHOULD treat an unrecognized status as giving no information.

> Although, what if there are two separate specifications that define a 
> given flag differently?  In that case, the client will not know which 
> meaning the server intends.

> So perhaps it's worth having the server advertise what addon 
> specifications it implements?

Hm, yeah, that's true, but it feels like it's rather unlikely that anyone
is going to implement those flags in a way substantially different than
INN did, since they've been around forever with basically the same
meaning.  If there were existing use with different meanings, we'd need
something to clarify what the meanings are, but I think any time you see
them they're going to have basically the same meaning.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>