active file too far ahead
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
kjetilho at ifi.uio.no
Wed Oct 27 16:25:55 UTC 1999
> You should never lower the highest article number for any reason
> short of complete catastrophe. And not even then, if you can help
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
> 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
(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.
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?
More information about the inn-workers