* RFC 3977 (NNTP) prevalance?
@ 2021-06-11 9:36 Eric Wong
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Eric Wong @ 2021-06-11 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: meta
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2021-06-11 9:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-06-11 9:36 RFC 3977 (NNTP) prevalance? Eric Wong
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).