Re: ietf-nntp Use of the LISTGROUP command

Mark Sidell <Mark.Sidell@forteinc.com> Tue, 10 December 1996 19:33 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa24223; 10 Dec 96 14:33 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18776; 10 Dec 96 14:33 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id NAA07909 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:29:16 -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 NAA07903 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:29:14 -0600 (CST)
Received: from barley.adnc.com (barley.adnc.com [205.216.138.31]) by academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.1) with SMTP id NAA09078 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 13:29:12 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-hub.forteinc.com by barley.adnc.com (SMI-8.6/SVRMailer ADN 1/96) id LAA27116; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:14:17 -0800
Received: from FORTE Notes by mail-hub.forteinc.com (1.00) id 32ad8d37; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:17:59 -1000
To: NatBa@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Use of the LISTGROUP command
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:18:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Sidell <Mark.Sidell@forteinc.com>
Message-Id: <19961210211759.32ad8d37@mail-hub.forteinc.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

> 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.

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

Mark Sidell
Chief Programmer
Forte Agent newsreader