RE: MT response and update -p command

[Milos Kleint]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:31 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: MT response and update -p command
> 
> 
> Milos Kleint writes [quoting me]:
> > > 
> > > This is historical.  Before CVS had the MT response, that 
> is exactly
> > > what happened to a final partial output line -- it was discarded.
> > 
> > So the MT response is the fix to the the bug? :)
> 
> You could say that.  Although as I recall, the MT response was really
> invented for a bunch of other reasons, it just so happened that it
> provided an easy fix for this problem, too.
> 
> > Well, the 5.14 chapter says no word about MT being required.
> 
> It's not.  In general, if a client or server doesn't implement a
> required command or response, other clients and servers won't 
> be able to
> talk to it at all.  If you don't implement MT, servers are perfectly
> happy to talk to you and everything even works right except 
> for this one
> very rare case that gives you less than desirable results.

:) ok.

> 
> > That's why we
> > decided not to implement, because we didn't find the 5.12 
> chapter quite
> > clear and detailed and we thought that we can start with 
> only M and E
> > responses and that we can add MT later. 
> 
> What isn't clear?  A simple minimal implementation is to completely
> ignore tags that start with + or -, to print a newline for the newline
> tag, and to print the following text for any other tags.
> 

I've already tried a quick fix equal to your suggestion. It seems to work.
Thanks. 
However we didn't get from the text how many + and - items are there and
what's their names.. I understood the 2 examples there just as examples and
not a complete list. The same goes for a complete list of tags.. I realized
there's fname for file name and so on... but I miss the list or something,
that's all.

Thanks for your help.

Milos Kleint