Archive-name

[Edward Vielmetti]

In article <9ZE5:-G at ggpc2.ferranti.com> peter at ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

   *If* people regularly used Archive-headers for stuff they did want archived,
   it would be reasonable to leave programs that didn't have it unarchived. But
   the way it is we have to save *everything* and look at it individually, since
   we never know what is real and what isn't.

Peter, you could look at everything as it comes in, and make the
decision to archive or not archive on the fly.  For just alt.sources,
that shouldn't be too much of a burden; and if you come up with good
Archive-name headers for the ones that dont' have them, come up with a
format for them that's sensible and post it to alt.sources.index.

You don't have to make a very difficult decision, just "do I want to
be able to find this 3 months later".  Most discussion is an easy no.
Most things with Archive-name headers are easy yes.

Tracking alt.sources is not going to be easy, it'll take some work.
Some people are doing some of it for you now; your mission, should
you choose to accept it, is to finish the process of adding on
headers where you see fit.  Apparently no one is going to do it
for you, it's up to you.

--Ed

Edward Vielmetti, U of Michigan math dept <emv at math.lsa.umich.edu>
moderator, comp.archives (who does his share of looking at everything)