Re: Google doesn't carry posts with binary attachements?

[rg.jones@rogers.com (Glenn Jones)]

Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<mbp3c.7312$_3.95967@typhoon.sonic.net>...
> In article 
> <PFk3c.178990$ah.152567@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
>  "Glenn Jones" <rg.jones@rogers.com> wrote:
> 
> > It appears google doesn't carry posts that have binary attachements
> 
> That would be correct. Anything with a binary attachment is completely 
> dumped by google. They don't archive them in any form. Their machines, 
> their system, their criteria. <shrug> Life goes on...
> 
> >  ... you
> > would expect them to carry the text at least?
> 
> While it's a simple process when considered from the "here's a single 
> message, look it over and extract the non-binary portion, then store it" 
> veiwpoint, the concept goes to pieces when scaled up to try to handle 
> the volume of data passing through usenet. Trying to process each and 
> every one of the god-only-knows-how-many postings that travel through 
> the cobbled-together mess we call Usenet every hour would be a lot like 
> trying to bail out the Pacific Ocean with a teacup.
> 
> Then there's the worries (both legal and philosophical) that come from 
> assuming editorial control over material you are not the creator of. 
> 
> Much simpler to just go "OK, we don't do binaries, ever, in any 
> circumstances, for any amount of money, for anybody. Don't like that? 
> Tough cookies. Here's a refund of everything you paid to use our 
> service. Don't let the screen door hit ya where the good lord split ya 
> when you leave."


I get your point  :O)

They seem to do purdy good job of filtering spam as well  ..based on
certain keywords and the like ..

Later