On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2010/1/17 Norman Maurer <[email protected]>: >>> Ok, I have now every implementation in place except one for >>> nntpserver. To be hornest I would be +1 for just remove the whole >>> nntpserver stuff. IMHO, its just a left over from the "old days" and >>> not maintained anyway. I don't think anyone is using it anyway. So >>> what about just remove the whole nntpserver stuff . If we really find >>> some usecase we can "merge" it back later. >> >> +1 nntp has always been very basic and its storage was not compatible >> with pop3, so it is mainly some protocol code. It doesn't support most >> stuff one would expect from an nntp server, so it is ok to remove it >> and if anyone will ever need that he will help reintegrating the >> protocol back. > > i'm starting to factor out an NNTP product. if anyone wants me to > leave NNTP in trunk, shout very soon.
to give norman space to continue with the mina work on trunk, i'm starting work on removal now but will commit no earlier than 11:00UT so jump in with objections now or forever cry into your coffee ;-) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
