Audit of INN against draft-ietf-nntpext-base-13.txt complete
alexk at demon.net
Mon Jul 9 09:34:44 UTC 2001
Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:
> Alex Kiernan <alexk at demon.net> writes:
> > Russ Allbery <rra at stanford.edu> writes:
> >> Summary: nnrpd responds with 480 to IHAVE
> > "nnrpd responds to all IHAVE commands with a 480 response (saying that
> > authentication is needed). This is nonsensical; nnrpd will never accept
> > an IHAVE command no matter how the user authenticates."
> > This is an interesting one... I actually need nnrpd to accept IHAVE (an
> > historical artifact from way back when, when Demon customers really did
> > peer with the news server)
> Heh! I didn't think anyone would need that. Well, we can certainly add
> it if someone wants it (probably another letter in an access string for
> now until we find a better way to express that). Are they actually mixing
> ARTICLE commands with IHAVE commands or something?
Mostly its people emulating a site, so they'll pull a feed using
something like slurp, then batch back posts to us. I'd guess a fair
number are running INN locally.
In our current server IHAVE and POST are more or less the same command
(modulo the arguments), just with different return codes. I doubt that
what we have today deals with the wrinkles highlighted in ietf-nntp
recently for this scenario though.
Alex Kiernan, Principal Engineer, Development, Thus PLC
More information about the inn-workers