🚀 go-pugleaf

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:
>>>>> "Peter Hucker" <no@spam.com>, took a moment to utter:
>>>>>> Binaries are 56 days, except multipart which is 5 days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Text is 56 days and increasing to an estimated 2 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Just to divert to something on topic for a mo'..are those estimates going
>>>>> to hold for text in binary Groups, ya think?
>>>>> Most all I have run across dump the text with the binary posts, same
>>>>> timeline.
>>>>
>>>> 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.