Audit of INN against draft-ietf-nntpext-base-13.txt complete

[Alex Kiernan]

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