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

Jeff Coffler <jeffc@netmanage.com> Thu, 31 October 1996 17:32 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa05851; 31 Oct 96 12:32 EST
Received: from PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15746; 31 Oct 96 12:32 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by pheasant.ACADEM.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA10817 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:27:48 -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 LAA10810 for <ietf-nntp@PHEASANT.ACADEM.COM>; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:27:44 -0600
Received: from netmanage.com (mail.netmanage.com [156.27.1.4]) by academ.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) with SMTP id LAA08918; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 11:26:52 -0600 (CST)
Received: from bellevue.NetManage.COM by netmanage.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26044; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:23:45 -0800
Received: from jeffc (jeffc.netmanage.com) by bellevue.NetManage.COM (5.0/satellite-06oct94-MarkS) id AA24874; Thu, 31 Oct 1996 09:19:39 +0800
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 96 09:18:29 PST
From: Jeff Coffler <jeffc@netmanage.com>
Subject: Re: nntp-extensions Re: ietf-nntp NNTP SEARCH extension internet-draft available
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Nat Ballou <natba@ims.microsoft.com>
Cc: bhern@netscape.com, ietf-nntp@academ.com, imap@cac.washington.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu, natba@microsoft.com, nntp-extensions@academ.com, Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
X-Mailer: Chameleon ATX 6.0, Standards Based IntraNet Solutions, NetManage Inc.
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <199610310600.BAA20957@ig.cs.utk.edu>
Message-Id: <Chameleon.846782493.jeffc@jeffc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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 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 see no reason that IMAP should replace NNTP.  Perhaps it should augment
it (such that servers of the future can answer on both ports), at the
most, but certainly not replace.

NNTP is very useful.  And I, for one, applaude Stan's efforts to both
document existing practices, and document extensions mechanisms.

	-- Jeff


--- On Thu, 31 Oct 1996 01:00:02 -0500  Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> wrote:
> > Would you elaborate?  I was under the impression that it would
> > be desirable for many clients to use IMAP as a protocol to read
> > newsgroups. 
> 
> I have the same impression.  
> 
> Mail and news are so similar that I have a difficult time justifying a
> different search protocol for them -- or at least I haven't seen the
> reasons to do so yet.  
> 
> I have a hard time justifying either the standards work or the
> implementation of an enhanced news reader protocol when we're already
> doing the work on a mail reading protocol which is more mature and has
> proven its utility in reading news.  It seems like we should either
> standardize on IMAP as the news reading protocol of the future, or
> come to some understanding as to why this is a Bad Idea.
> 
> If IMAP is missing functionality that is required for news, might it
> be better to extend it than to extend NNTP in this manner?  (And might
> that functionality also be useful for mail?)
> 
> Even if we found that we needed to continue to have separate
> protocols, when adding new facilities to NNTP, we should seriously
> consider adopting IMAP-like ones where they exist.  Why waste code?
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> 
> 

---------------End of Original Message-----------------