IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp Backfill

Jack De Winter <jack@wildbear.on.ca> Wed, 18 December 1996 17:34 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa28827; 18 Dec 96 12:34 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18704; 18 Dec 96 12:34 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) id LAA09539 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:31:53 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: academ2.academ.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA09534 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:31:51 -0600 (CST)
Received: from lacroix.wildbear.on.ca (lacroix.wildbear.on.ca [199.246.132.198]) by academ.com (8.8.3/8.7.1) with ESMTP id LAA01544 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:31:43 -0600 (CST)
Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from localhost (router,SLMailNT V3.0); Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:25:48 -0500
Received: by lacroix.wildbear.on.ca from wildside.wildbear.on.ca (199.246.132.193::mail daemon,SLMailNT V3.0); Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:25:46 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961218122955.00685434@lacroix>
X-Sender: "Jack De Winter" <jack@wildbear.on.ca>
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:29:57 -0500
To: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>, Mark Sidell <Mark.Sidell@forteinc.com>
From: Jack De Winter <jack@wildbear.on.ca>
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Backfill
Cc: ietf-nntp@academ.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

At 04:01 PM 12/18/96 +0000, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>Mark Sidell said:
>> Anyway, as far as I know, demon's is the only server that backfills.  
>> But, perhaps Clive could provide more information.
>
>I am told that the Demon server no longer backfills; the cause of this
>behaviour has been fixed. I can't comment on the LISTGROUPS issue you
>mention.

I know one question of mine has always been:

if a server is supposed to be monotonically increasing and the base
is reset (say at the beginning of the new year as was done at my
university), should we make sure that we put wording into the spec
that all of the articles in any group that is reset must be renumbered?

Otherwise you will have: 1-X (new articles) and Y-N(old articles yet
to expire) and essentially will have a range of 1-N.

ideas?

regards,
Jack
-------------------------------------------------
Jack De Winter - Wildbear Consulting, Inc.
(519) 576-3873		http://www.wildbear.on.ca/

Author of SLMail(95/NT) (http://www.seattlelab.com/) and other great products.

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email