INTERNET-DRAFT                               Charles H. Lindsey
Usenet Format Working Group                  University of Manchester
                                             July 2001

Appendix A.4 - Obsolete Control Messages

Appendix A.4 - Obsolete Control Messages
   This present standard obsoletes certain control messages defined in
   [RFC 1036] (see 7.7 all of which had the effect of requesting a
   description of a relaying or serving agent's software, or its peering
   arrangements with neighbouring sites, to be emailed to the article's
   reply address. Whilst of some utility when Usenet was much smaller
   than it is now, they had become no more than a tool for the malicious
   sending of mailbombs. Moreover, many organizations now consider
   information about their internal connectivity to be confidential.

      version
      sendsys
      whogets
      senduuname

   "Version" requested details of the transport software in use at a
   site.  "Sendsys" requested the full list of newsgroups taken, and the
   peering arrangements. "Who gets" was similar, but restricted to a
   named newsgroup.  "Senduuname" resembled "sendsys" but restricted to
   the list of peers connected by UUCP.

   Historically, a checkgroups body consisting of one or two lines, the
   first of the form "-n newsgroup", caused check-groups to apply to
   only that single newsgroup.

   Historically, an article posted to a newsgroup whose name had exactly
   three components of which the third was "ctl" signified that article
   was to be taken as a control message.  The Subject header specified
   the actions, in the same way the Control header does now.

   These forms are documented for archeological purposes only; they MUST
   NO LONGER be used.

Diffs to previous draft

--- {draft-04}	Wed Jul 11 21:56:28 2001
+++ {draft-05}	Wed Jul 11 21:56:29 2001
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 
Appendix A.4 - Obsolete Control Messages
    This present standard obsoletes certain control messages defined in
-   [RFC 1036] (see 7.7), all of which had the effect of requesting a
+   [RFC 1036] (see 7.7 all of which had the effect of requesting a
    description of a relaying or serving agent's software, or its peering
    arrangements with neighbouring sites, to be emailed to the article's
    reply address. Whilst of some utility when Usenet was much smaller