🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3939@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:
>In article <1990Aug9.205409.28967@sci.ccny.cuny.edu> jeffrey@sci.ccny.cuny.edu (Jeffrey L Bromberger) writes:
>> It would
>>appear to be (diskwise) more convenient to receive the article just
>>long enough to batch/compress it, and then kill our copy of it.

>How about letting the site that feeds you, batch the groups that you don't
>want but your downstream site wants, separately, and address it directly to
>that site in two hops, with your site just passing it along without having
>to look into it.

  That puts another stage of newsgroup turning on/off.
  Why doesn't my downfeed just pick it up themselves?

  Better, I think, would be to have another form of 'F' flag ('L' if
it isn't already taken) where a sub-group of junk-- junk.site
(or a directory 'junk.site') where a LINK to the articles to be batched
would be placed. The batcher would unlink() the articles as the are
batched. 
  This defeats one nice advantage of batching: if the link dies or
the downfeed goes down, then provided you are running something like
nbatcher (maybe the C news batchers allow this too) then you won't
fill up your outbound directory and the articles waiting for them
can still be expired. Yes, they miss articles that way, but if it
is comp.sys.ibm.pc, well, I'm not crying...

-- 
   :!mcr!:            | < political commentary currently undergoing Senate >
   Michael Richardson | < committee review. Returning next house session.  >
 Play: mcr@julie.UUCP Work: michael@fts1.UUCP Fido: 1:163/109.10 1:163/138
    Amiga----^     - Pay attention only to _MY_ opinions. -   ^--Amiga--^