Opened 14 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
#111 closed enhancement (fixed)
Advertise extensions to the LIST command
Reported by: | Julien ÉLIE | Owned by: | eagle |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | low | Milestone: | 2.5.3 |
Component: | general | Version: | 2.5.0 |
Severity: | wishlist | Keywords: | compliance |
Cc: |
Description (last modified by )
INN recognizes LIST keywords not mentioned in CAPABILITIES.
They should be documented in an Internet-Draft.
- LIST DISTRIBUTIONS
- LIST MODERATORS
- LIST MOTD
- LIST SUBSCRIPTIONS (with a wildmat)
- Define the meaning of some other status fields of LIST ACTIVE:
- j No posting allowed, incoming articles filed into junk
- x No posting allowed, remote postings rejected
- =* Group aliasing
The meaning of a junk newsgroup will have to be described.
How could we advertise these new status fields? (EXTENDED-STATUS, with a version number, as a new capability?)
Available references:
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/nntp/drafts/draft-hernacki-nntplist-02.txt
http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/nntp/rfcs/rfc2980.txt
Change History (6)
comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Milestone: | → 2.5.2 |
comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by
No need to advertise these new status fields. The RFC defining them will just update RFC 3977.
comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by
Component: | doc → general |
---|
It is more than documentation now: new status fields (probably local "Y" and "M"), change for the "j" status field, check UTF-8 for LIST MOTD.
comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by
Milestone: | 2.5.2 → 2.5.3 |
---|
[9026] and [9028] : UTF-8 check for LIST MOTD and LIST DISTRIBUTIONS.
[9027] : "j" status field.
No new status fields because they are not that useful...
The only remaining thing is to check whether the behaviour of INN corresponds to what will be standardized, and to advertise the new LIST variants.
comment:6 Changed 12 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
RFC 6048 is the proposed standard that describes these commands.
Mention the fact that INN implements this standard in [9137] and [9145].
More robust LIST MODERATORS reply with a check done during the evaluation of the submission template in [9143].
LIST MOTD is also implemented in innd, with a different message than nnrpd.
See https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-elie-nntp-list-additions/ for a beginning of standardization.