From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/8187
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Long time to exit summary buffer, possible speed enhancement?
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:00:49 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <199610041000.MAA05174@bombur2.uio.no>
References: <ocr919q91di.fsf@spssunp.spspme.ml.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035148389 10617 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:13:09 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:13:09 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: (ding) GNUS Mailing List <ding@ifi.uio.no>
Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.7.6/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA01165 for <steve@miranova.com>; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 03:40:36 -0700
Original-Received: from goggins.uio.no (6089@goggins.uio.no [129.240.201.2]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <MAA12328@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:01:14 +0200
Original-Received: from ulrik.uio.no by goggins.uio.no with local-SMTP (PP) 
          id <19540-0@goggins.uio.no>; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:00:51 +0200
Original-Received: by bombur2.uio.no ; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:00:49 +0200 (MET DST)
Original-To: Colin Rafferty <craffert@ml.com>
In-reply-to: <ocr919q91di.fsf@spssunp.spspme.ml.com>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:8187
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:8187

>Colin Rafferty <craffert@spspme.ml.com> writes:
>>Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no> writes:
> 
> assuming (pessimisticly) that we all move to 64 bit
> machine within ten years (and square MAX_INT), I would have to receive
> about 37000 messages per day in order to wrap around.
> 
> Even my black-hole newsgroup doesn't get more than 10k messages in a day
> (and that is a very bad day indeed).

Well, I *have* seen suspiciously low article numbers in occational
newsgroups, so I assume the numbers do get wrapped some times --
regardless of whether or not it is *necessary* to do so.

On the other hand, the original problem in this thread was about mail
groups, so I guess this wrap-around thing is not very relevant in this
context anyway.


Regards,

Hallvard