IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp New wording on article numbers

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au> Sat, 28 December 1996 08:00 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa05942; 28 Dec 96 3:00 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03540; 28 Dec 96 3:00 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA00451 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:56:02 -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 (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA00418 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:55:53 -0600 (CST)
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (munnari.OZ.AU [128.250.1.21]) by academ.com (8.8.4/8.7.1) with SMTP id BAA23439 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:55:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.56) id HA05390; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:55:35 +1100 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU)
To: Jon Ribbens <jon@oaktree.co.uk>
Cc: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>, ietf-nntp@academ.com
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp New wording on article numbers
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:49:13 -0000." <199612280249.CAA15425@black.oaktree.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:55:20 +1100
Message-Id: <7700.851759720@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

    Date:        Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:49:13 +0000 (GMT)
    From:        Jon Ribbens <jon@oaktree.co.uk>
    Message-ID:  <199612280249.CAA15425@black.oaktree.co.uk>

    This is wrong. The last article number may quite possibly be less than
    that from a previous response for that group. The last article number
    is the highest number corresponding to a currently available
    article - it is *not* the high-water-mark. If there are articles
    2, 3 and 4, then the highest article number is 4. Subsequently
    article 4 may be cancelled, and then the GROUP command must return
    3 as the highest available article.

This can't possibly be right, article number 4 can't be used again,
or readers that have read it before it was cancelled would never
see it's replacement.   The GROUP command isn't intend to give any
kind of authoritative statement about which articles actually exist,
just what the relevant range of numbers is to look in - any of the
articles in the range (including the lower and upper bounds) might
be missing when requested specifically.

I totally agree with the original wording, numbers reported must
never go backwards.

kre

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email