active file too far ahead

Per Hedeland per at
Wed Oct 27 18:23:27 UTC 1999

Brian Kantor <brian at> wrote:

>If used within its intended scope, GROUP may return either the last
>article number assigned to a stored article, or it may return the
>last article number assigned to a currently-stored article.  The effect
>on the client is the same.

*This* I think perfectly agrees with what typical implementations do
(and with what I said:-). I also agree with everything else you said -

>>        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 could have sworn we deprecated reinstatement, but I guess I'm out of
>that loop again.

I don't read that section as allowing reinstatement (nor forbidding
it:-) - *that* would definitely break most clients out there. I.e. I
take "decrease and increase again" to mean that a himark sequence of
110,109,108,111,112 is OK - while I most definitely don't think (nor
believe that the authors of the above meant) that a sequence of
110,109,108,109,110,111 is.

>>I think this mandates INN's behaviour...  I agree with your view,
>>though -- has this been discussed on Usefor?
>I don't know.  Haven't followed it in a long long time.

It's my understanding that Usefor doesn't do NNTP, and thus while the
issue of article numbering in general (or reinstatement in particular)
is something for Usefor to consider/decide, the response to the NNTP
GROUP command is not - but I haven't followed Usefor either.:-)


More information about the inn-workers mailing list