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

[Rich Salz <[e-mail]>]

>I think that it is important to separate "exists" from "is needed".

I once tried to do this -- prune down the "nnrpd commands" in INN.
Could'nt be done.  Every single command (and there aren't many of them,
and they're pretty simple, and 977+the two manpages were enough to get
a wide community started hacking) was used by a large existing customer
base.

>For example, I believe that NEWGROUPS is an artifact of a bygone day when it
>was desirable and practical to tell the user about new newsgroups.  But today,
>now that every day a hundred new alt.sex.gerbils.naughty.ha.ha.ha.ha groups
>pop up, I see no value in it.

>The issue is to determine need.  I believe that "need" means "an IMAP
>implementator is stuck without this function being available, and there is no
>satisfactory alternative."  It makes no sense to copy a function from NNTP to
>IMAP just because it's there, or someone who does not plan to implement IMAP
>says it should be there.

It all depends on how much you want to lower the barrier to the One True
Protocol.  I am tired of saying I favor diversity until we know what's best.
But if you believe one protocol is the answer, and you want to make it 
difficult for the existing userbase to convert because.

>I'm not sure what LIST SUBSCRIPTIONS does.  If this is for remote .newsrc
>support, IMAP already supports this with its LSUB command.

Read the NNTP RFC's and drafts.  I have been doing the IMAP crowd the
courtesy of not asking for email-based tutorials, and instead tried to
find some time to read the spec.  Extend the same courtesy, enh?

>I am still waiting for an answer to my question about the "moral" issues of
>search.  Not all that long ago, I heard the NNTP crowd saying that IMAP was
>morally wrong

Please repeat your question.  I recall nothing like "morally wrong" coming
up in the discussion -- perhaps you should retract that comment.

I was surprised to see that the "state of the art" in IMAP was an I-D.
Is the IMAP crowd really saying that an NNTP draft should be withdrawn
just because a previous *draft document* was out a few months earlier?
Wow.
	/r$