IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp Use of the LISTGROUP command

Ben Polk <bpolk@netscape.com> Tue, 10 December 1996 20:09 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa25488; 10 Dec 96 15:09 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20047; 10 Dec 96 15:09 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id OAA08025 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:05:47 -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 OAA08020 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:05:45 -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 OAA09280 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:05:43 -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 MAA15402 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:05:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bpolk ([207.1.137.51]) by dredd.mcom.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with SMTP id AAA24520 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:05:12 -0800
X-Sender: bpolk@nsmail-2
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: ietf-nntp@academ.com
From: Ben Polk <bpolk@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Use of the LISTGROUP command
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:05:12 -0800
Message-ID: <19961210200512.AAA24520@bpolk>
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

At 02:18 PM 12/10/96 -0500, Mark Sidell 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?
>
>The Agent newsreader also uses the LISTGROUP command.  The workaround 
>is much slower.  So, I request that it *not* be removed.

I agree.

>We don't have to be here forever if we simply include all commands that 
>are de facto standards.

Yes.  This is obvious from the proposed charter, isn't it?

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email