active file too far ahead

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme]

[Brian Kantor]

>   You should never lower the highest article number for any reason
>   short of complete catastrophe.  And not even then, if you can help
>   it.

Yes, I realize this now that I've thought a bit more about it.

>   GROUP should return the highest article number which has ever
>   existed, even if that article has subsequently been removed due to
>   cancel, expire, or supercedure.

If so, INN 2.2 is broken.  Per Hedeland doesn't agree with you, he
says my Gnus is broken since it relies on output from GROUP instead of
LIST ACTIVE.

>   I hoped I'd made that clear the first time :-), but I'm fairly
>   certain it has also been clarified in the NNTP Common Practices
>   RFC.

(which one is that?)

Well, RFC 977 isn't completely clear, it says "last article".  It
seems like INN 2.2 interprets that as last _available_ article.

draft-ietf-nntpext-base-08.txt says:

        No similar assumption [refers to lowmark which can never
        decrease] can be made about the high water mark, as this can
        decrease if an article is removed, and then increase again if
        it is reinstated or if new articles arrive.

I think this mandates INN's behaviour...  I agree with your view,
though -- has this been discussed on Usefor?


Kjetil T.