[time] More Aggressive Server Prunning Redux

[der Mouse]

> I think what's most interesting about this is we've found a case
> where the pool's simple scoring mechanism isn't enough to identify an
> obviously bad server.  [...]  OTOH, it's only 300ms off.  For casual
> users who ask one server for the time, this one's close enough to be
> useful.

So it's *not* really "an obviously bad server".  It may not be good
enough for you - certainly isn't for me - but, as you point out, time
geeks like us use multiple references so we can toss out a host like
this as a falseticker.  But for the sort of person who just uses the
pool, it probably is quite good enough, and thus shouldn't be thrown
out.  (Yet - if it's drifting, it'll get worse.  But it'll also get
thrown out.)

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B