Natterings about history files

[Scott Gifford]

"Forrest J. Cavalier III" <mibsoft at epix.net> writes:

> > The drawback here is that you're making a strong assumption about the
> > correlation between the article Date header and the arrival time that
> > could be inaccurate in the case of articles dated into the future, and the
> > failure mode is to accept a duplicate.
[ ... ]
> In other words, you can't write the entry until you receive the
> article and look at the date header.  There are a couple of ways
> to do this, but one way of looking at is there is not one history
> file you are writing to. You probably need 2 or 3 open always, 
> because it is common to get articles delayed by a while.  Most
> will go into the "current" day, but some will go in the -1 day.

Perhaps I've missed something, but it seems like you can solve the
problem with articles in the future by keeping a "+1 day" file, too.
It should be extremely small, since articles don't generally arrive
from the future, and when the day changes, becomes the "current day".

-----ScottG.