Posted by Don M. on 09/08/05 00:50

"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message news:3o97vmF4s3q9U1@individual.net...
> 1@odds.com wrote:
> <snip>
> > I'm
> > not too sure of what happened after that but it appears the Giganews
> > claim to retain text groups for 760+ days was put to the test. A
> > challenge of planting a response to a random post made a couple years
> > ago was made, and apparently proved to be impossible.
>
> This is the bit which bothers me. If Giganews has a retention of 760
> days, then you would expect to see posts 760 days old still on the server.
============

Not really... It depends on when they first started offering the newsgroup and what the
retention window was like before the recent "over 760 days retention" claim. This should
be more evident with a less popular group like amm.kazaa. Well-established newsgroups
would probably fit the bill, but I don't expect this one to be among them. If Giganews
didn't have the older posts, claiming 760 days won't make them appear. If they're
counting on Google archives to extend their own retention further into the past, it won't
be pretty for ammw. Google's archival of ammw was spotty for a long time. I could almost
swear they were only archiving Secret's messages. :)

>
> <snip>
>
> I can't really be arsed to search googlegroups or other archives to find
> out.

And you could be wasting your time for the reason I mentioned above.


Don

[Back to original message]