Xref: utzoo news.admin:15232 news.software.b:8261 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b Subject: Re: admins should expire news.announce.newusers at 90 days Message-ID: Date: 13 Jun 91 14:01:33 GMT References: <1991Jun11.173229.21529@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. Lines: 28 henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a * > >The expire software should examine the Expires: field for the postings in > >news.announce.newusers, *whether the system administrator asks it to or not* > > Where did you get the idea that it doesn't? Both B News and C News expire, b > default, always respect the Expires: header, although C News expire lets the > sysadmin set bounds on it. I know. I'm suggesting that it shouldn't just be the default; expire should be hard-wired to use the Expires: header for news.announce.newusers, so that the system administrator has to put in some moderately hard work to get rid of the introductory postings. The impression I get is that a lot of system administrators switch off Expires: header processing globally, and give a flat n-day expire to the news.* hierarchy. > Like it or lump it, it is ultimately the sysadmin's decision whether he wants > to spend disk space on keeping articles on line for long periods of time, all > the more so because there is no restriction on who can put Expires: lines on > their articles or how silly those lines can be. I don't think that silly Expires: lines in news.announce.newusers are a problem. mathew