🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 13:31:13 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <no@spam.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 23:31:53 +0100, Alley00p <alley00p@mesazoic.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 14:21:53 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <no@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 06:45:56 +0100, (akula) <akula@sharks.plc.ltd> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:18:53 +0000 (UTC), Chris Caputo
>>>> <ccaputo@alt.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Peter Hucker" <no@spam.com> writes:
>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 03:36:29 +0100,  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would think so: I've noticed articles expiring at different times in
>>>>>> the same group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct.  Our expiration times are not based on group name, but rather are
>>>>> based on article type (text/binary/size/# of parts).  For example, a text
>>>>> message posted to alt.binaries.x will last as long as a text message
>>>>> posted to alt.test.
>>>>
>>>> Did you ever stop to think just how stupid that is?  IF your servers
>>>> ever attain two years text retention, that means that if one were to
>>>> download headers from, say, alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc.0-day two years
>>>> from now, they would see a million REQ: dating back up to two
>>>> years...just as an example.  Who the frig wants to waddle through all
>>>> those expired text posts?
>>>>
>>>> I guess people have come to expect such moronic reasoning from you,
>>>> Chris.  That's just one of many reasons why your NSP is third-rate.
>>>
>>> There are groups containing both chat and images.  Why remove the chat before necessary?
>>
>> To make you ask yet another stupid question.
>
>Which you don't have the answer to.

Of course not. I don't have answers for stupid questions.