Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!intercon!amanda@intercon.UUCP From: amanda@intercon.UUCP (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: news.software.nntp Subject: Re: Streaming NNTP Message-ID: <12-Jun-89.125303@192.41.214.2> Date: 12 Jun 89 16:41:36 GMT References: <1759@ucsd.EDU> <08-Jun-89.110238@192.41.214.2> <42723@oliveb.olivetti.com> Sender: news@intercon.UUCP Reply-To: amanda@intercon.UUCP (Amanda Walker) Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation Lines: 22 In article <1759@ucsd.EDU>, brian@ucsd.EDU (Brian Kantor) writes: > Please note that if you make some change to the servers and clients that > affects the syntax of any of the commands or responses, you MUST use an > Xxxx command so that you will not be issuing any commands that an unmodified > server will barf on. That is why XHDR is an X command (but will probably be > adopted into the mainstream in the next protocol revision). Yup. Even my currently-being-played-with software won't break unless someone else has implemented an "XHEAD" command with a different syntax, and has stolen software off of my Mac II :-). I suppose I could even change it to "XHEAD-INTERCON", just to make sure :-)... I may end up throwing this out anyway, since it only really wins on a network with a very long RTT with respect to the speed of the server, and just sending out "HEAD" commands while the previous header is still coming across does just about as well. -- Amanda Walker -- "Some of the worst mistakes in history have resulted from trying to apply methods that work fine in one field to another where they don't." -James Hogan