INN feed autonegotation
rra at stanford.edu
Sun Dec 11 20:04:13 UTC 2005
Florian Weimer <fw at deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> * Kristian Köhntopp:
>> I propose a better, in-band solution and want to hear what you think
>> about this. That solution is a NNTP extension, perhaps as an extended
>> answer to "MODE STREAM" or as a separate command such as "FEEDPARMS" or
>> "FEEDPARMS pattern|max-connections| article-size".
> Maybe it would be better to transfer headers and bodies separately, and
> wait for confirmation before transferring the body. This way, the
> receiving and can decide if it wants to receive the body. It won't help
> to significantly reduce traffic for misfed discussion hierarchies,
That's an interesting thought. It makes the logic in the server and
clients a lot more complex, though. It's pretty easy to stash a message
ID somewhere while waiting for the message. Stashing the full header
somewhere is a lot more annoying.
> If you want to exchange filtering rules, at least use some existing
> standard like RFC 3028 to describe the filters. 8-)
That doesn't help with all the Usenet-specific bits, though. Most of what
you want to set up feed rules about are newsgroup names and article size.
If we could just get those two problems fixed and maybe expose some limit
on crossposting, I think that would get rid of 95% of the problem.
Sieve feels like overkill for that.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
<http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.
More information about the inn-workers