From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <e@80x24.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN:  
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00
	shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1])
	by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B191F5AE;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:36:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 09:36:14 +0000
From: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
To: meta@public-inbox.org
Subject: RFC 3977 (NNTP) prevalance?
Message-ID: <20210611093614.GA11264@dcvr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Id: <meta.public-inbox.org>

I'm wondering which and how wide support of RFC 3977 is amongst
NNTP clients.  The older RFC 977 seems more widely-implemented
and the differences are minor enough that 977 clients can work
on 3977 servers without problems.

One thing I noticed is our handling of "GROUP" is more in line
with RFC 977 where we return the min and max article number of
the group.  In contrast, RFC 3977 stipulates using low and high
water marks (which account for deleted articles).  It's a minor
difference, I guess...

Fwiw, RFC 3977 came about in 2006 when NNTP was already on a
decline.  I think my ISP stopped providing NNTP access around
that time, too.  So I suspect NNTP clients/libraries largely
ignored 3977 and continued supporting the older 977.