Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!nbires!hao!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!trwrb!felix!rlong
From: rlong@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Expiration dates on OtherRealms
Message-ID: <4160@felix.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Jul-87 15:27:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: felix.4160
Posted: Tue Jul 28 15:27:42 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 11:20:14 EDT
References: <2525@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: rlong@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 20

In article <2525@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
>While burning disk space all over the world is a "solution" to Chuq's
>problems, it bothers me.  So far nobody else has refused to remove
>Expires: lines or failed to cancel "never expires" type postings, once
>I explained what Expires: was for, and how individual sites manage
>their disk space.  (Every once in a while I read the front of my
>history file to see what old articles still linger there, and email the
>folks who did it, educating them about how untutored use of Expires: is
>a Bad Thing.)  Chuq seems to see his group as more important than the
>rules for Expires: lines.  Do the rest of the news admins agree?

I don't see that Chuq is breaking any rules with his use of Expires header
lines.  His reasons are perfectly valid, and as he's pointed out, anyone
who feels the need to override the expiration date at a given site is
welcome to do so.  I really don't see what you see is the problem with 
this.
--
	Roger L. Long
	FileNet Corp
	{hplabs,trwrb}!felix!bytebug