IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp Use of the LISTGROUP command

Brian Hernacki <bhern@netscape.com> Tue, 10 December 1996 19:12 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa23268; 10 Dec 96 14:12 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18252; 10 Dec 96 14:12 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id NAA07194 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:03:14 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: academ2.academ.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA07189 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:03:12 -0600 (CST)
Received: from r2d2.mcom.com (h-205-217-237-47.netscape.com [205.217.237.47]) by academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id NAA07789 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:03:11 -0600 (CST)
Received: from dredd.mcom.com (dredd.mcom.com [205.217.237.54]) by r2d2.mcom.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA13859 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ventnor.mcom.com ([207.1.137.53]) by dredd.mcom.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA1206; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:02:38 -0800
Message-ID: <32ADB408.282A@netscape.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:03:36 -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: Nat Ballou <NatBa@microsoft.com>
CC: ietf-nntp@academ.com
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Use of the LISTGROUP command
References: <0c2cc0038180ac6IMSMAIL@ims.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

Nat Ballou wrote:
> 
> This seems like a pretty weak reason to add the LISTGROUP
> command to the draft - especially if the newsreader has a
> workaround for when the command does not exist.  We're going
> to be here forever if we allow clients to decide which commands
> get put in the draft.  Could we remove this command from the
> draft?
> 
> Also, would the chair list other commands that made it into
> the draft under similar circumstances?

I thought that this draft was not suppose to be modifing the protocol
(with the EXTENSTIONS exception). The charter says it should document
existing standards...of which LISTGROUP is one.

--brian

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email