On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 04:20:38PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-02-07 14:32:47 +0100, Urs Janßen wrote: > > LIST EXTENSION isn't specified by an RFC and it looks like that it > > will never be officially implemented (CAPABILITIES might be it's > > "replacement"). so officiall we can't blame the netscape server, but > > usualy INN is regarded as reference implementation so I'd say that > > expecting an 202 answer is the right thing and the server is > > 'buggy'. there is still tins problem with unexpected multiline > > responses and getting out of sync... > > OK. However, in the absence of a specification by an RFC, tin should > support the Netscape answer.
there is a draft wich 'defines' the responsecode: draft-ietf-nntpext-base-24.txt, section 5.3 | 5.3 LIST EXTENSIONS | 5.3.1 Usage | This command is optional. | Syntax | LIST EXTENSIONS | Responses | 202 Extension list follows (multiline) | 402 Server has no extensions but as mentioned above the command might be replaced with the new CAPABILITIES command which might have a different returncode (looks like it will be 101 for success as stated in draft-ietf-nntpext-authinfo-06.txt and draft-ietf-nntpext-streaming-03.txt). urs -- "Only whimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)" - Linus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
