Re: ietf-nntp NNTP doubling of starting periods
Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Thu, 14 November 1996 08:12 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa25967; 14 Nov 96 3:12 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04336;
14 Nov 96 3:12 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id
CAA29318 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 02:09:12 -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 (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA29313 for
<ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 02:09:00 -0600 (CST)
Received: from aun.uninett.no (aun.uninett.no [129.241.1.99]) by academ.com
(8.7.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id CAA03060; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 02:08:53 -0600 (CST)
Received: from dale.uninett.no by aun.uninett.no with SMTP (PP);
Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:08:43 +0100
Received: from dale.uninett.no (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dale.uninett.no (8.6.9/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02862;
Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:19:53 +0100
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Jean van Waterschoot <jvwater@mcs.net>
cc: Stan Barber <sob@academ.com>, ietf-nntp@academ.com
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp NNTP doubling of starting periods
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed,
13 Nov 1996 01:37:31 CST." <199611130737.BAA05943@Kitten.mcs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2856.847923592.1@dale.uninett.no>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 23:19:53 +0100
Message-ID: <2860.847923593@dale.uninett.no>
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk
Jean,
think a bit more.
Either the existing systems follow the specification (doubling dots
at the beginning of lines, removing the doubling on reception),
or they don't.
They are all consistent about it, or your tests would have failed.
But you CAN'T TELL from your test which is the case because it
is indeed being passed through "transparently" - just that something
happened in the meantime.
If the current universal practice is not to do this, fine - we can
change the specs to be in line with reality.
But if the spec is currently followed, changing it will lead to a VERY
nasty problem of interoperability between "old" and "new" versions.
Don't change it if you don't need it.....
Harald A (since nobody else seemed to reply)
- ietf-nntp NNTP doubling of starting periods Jean van Waterschoot
- Re: ietf-nntp NNTP doubling of starting periods Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: ietf-nntp NNTP doubling of starting periods Keith Moore
- Re: ietf-nntp NNTP doubling of starting periods dread
- RE: ietf-nntp NNTP doubling of starting periods Michael Nerone