IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> Thu, 31 October 1996 17:48 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06541; 31 Oct 96 12:48 EST
Received: from PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16244; 31 Oct 96 12:48 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA10930 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:45:58 -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 LAA10922 for <ietf-nntp@PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:45:54 -0600
Received: from ig.cs.utk.edu (IG.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.149]) by academ.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) with ESMTP id LAA09387; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:45:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost by ig.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK) id MAA02643; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:44:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199610311744.MAA02643@ig.cs.utk.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: Jeff Coffler <jeffc@netmanage.com>
cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Nat Ballou <natba@ims.microsoft.com>, bhern@netscape.com, ietf-nntp@academ.com, imap@cac.washington.edu, natba@microsoft.com, nntp-extensions@academ.com, Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
Subject: Re: nntp-extensions Re: ietf-nntp NNTP SEARCH extension internet-draft available
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:18:29 PST." <Chameleon.846782493.jeffc@jeffc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 12:44:51 -0500
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

> I strongly disagree with your analysis.
> 
> I think that, for reading news, NOTHING is as proven as NNTP is today.

NNTP works well for what it does, but so does IMAP.  
And IMAP has more functionality than NNTP's reader protocol.

Shall we then extend NNTP's reader protocol to have the same
capabilities as IMAP, but in a different and incompatible fashion?
Why?

> NNTP is routinely used to transfer perhaps billions of messages (when
> you consider all the news server machines on the Internet today) daily
> both between server to server and server to client.

I'm not proposing that we deprecate NNTP.  I assume we'd retain NNTP
for server to server transfers, and also to allow reading of news from
pre-existing NNTP clients.  Rather, I'm proposing that we not extend
NNTP's reader protocol, because we already have an adequately
specified protocol that does the job better.

Or if IMAP isn't better than NNTP for reading news, why not?

Keith

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email