IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: nntp-extensions Re: ietf-nntp NNTP SEARCH extension internet-draft available

Brian Hernacki <bhern@netscape.com> Thu, 31 October 1996 17:49 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06579; 31 Oct 96 12:49 EST
Received: from PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16270; 31 Oct 96 12:49 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA10895 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:42:12 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: pheasant.ACADEM.COM: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA10888 for <ietf-nntp@PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:42:09 -0600
Received: from hedgehog.mcom.com (h-207-1-136-17.netscape.com [207.1.136.17]) by academ.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id LAA09138; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:42:07 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ventnor.mcom.com ([207.1.137.53]) by hedgehog.mcom.com (Netscape Mail Server v1.1) with SMTP id AAA22816; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:41:32 -0700
Message-ID: <3278E44E.27F8@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:39:26 -0800
From: Brian Hernacki <bhern@netscape.com>
Organization: Netscape, Floating Point Division
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0GoldC (X11; U; SunOS 5.5 sun4u)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
CC: Nat Ballou <natba@ims.microsoft.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>, ietf-nntp@academ.com, natba@microsoft.com, nntp-extensions@academ.com, imap@cac.washington.edu
Subject: Re: nntp-extensions Re: ietf-nntp NNTP SEARCH extension internet-draft available
References: <199610310600.BAA20957@ig.cs.utk.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

> Mail and news are so similar that I have a difficult time justifying a
> different search protocol for them -- or at least I haven't seen the
> reasons to do so yet.

While I like the idea of a single message access protocol, news and mail
still seem different enough to me that I cannot envision using IMAP in
it's current state as *the* reader protocol.

I have probably spouted this before, but I think the best course of
action is to let IMAP and NNTP develop seperately and simple let the
best protocol emerge.

--brian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email