Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!east.Berkeley.EDU!phil
From: phil@east.Berkeley.EDU (Phil Lapsley)
Newsgroups: news.software.nntp
Subject: Re: LIST command and filenames
Message-ID: <14026@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 21 May 89 05:09:56 GMT
References: <157@lib.tmc.edu> <1720@ucsd.EDU> <14701@paris.ics.uci.edu> <161@lib.tmc.edu> <15151@paris.ics.uci.edu> <14014@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <15207@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: phil@east.Berkeley.EDU (Phil Lapsley)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 23

In the referenced article, Mark Nagel writes:
> [...] but NNTP is already is "tied" to current news
> software.  The LIST command (ignoring the recent enhancements) returns
> the active file.

But the format is documented, at least to some degree, in RFC 977.
With the current news software, it happens that this description
corresponds to what's in the active file, so it's easiest just to
slam the active file out over the socket.  If the active file were
to change, you could, if you wanted, massage it to look no different
to the client.  (In fact, a strict interpretation of the RFC would
require that you do this; but let's not let narrow legalistic
interpretations stop progress).

> As I said, perhaps LIST <file> is too general.  However, *something*
> is needed.  Any other suggestions?

I have no problem with adding more items to the LIST command; I just
want them to be better documented than "This command returns whatever
happens to be in an arbitrarily named file on the server."  :-)
That was the thrust of my earlier article.

Phil Lapsley		...!ucbvax!phil		phil@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU