Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: PKARC 3.5
Message-ID: <3439@ihlpg.ATT.COM>
Date: Sun, 12-Jul-87 21:44:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.3439
Posted: Sun Jul 12 21:44:47 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jul-87 05:19:09 EDT
References: <3780@osu-eddie.UUCP> <1809@ttrdc.UUCP> <422@ihaxa.ATT.COM> <1299@chinet.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 22
Summary: How are we supposed to know who screwed up??????

In article <1299@chinet.UUCP>, randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess) writes:
< 	I received both postings just fine, so, please don't re-post.
        ^ 
       ^ ^
      ^   ^ 
< At least, make sure the reposting doesn't go thru *my* machine and the
< systems I feed.
< 	I really can't understand all these "*I* didn't get foo 27/45, 
< please repost".  How bout "I didn't get foo 27/45.  Whatever site along
< my newsfeed path that broke the postings, *please* fix *your* machine
< and arrange for me to get the missing posting?"  That mite best be
< done via email, also.
--------------------
Pardon?  If the site along the newsfeed path who broke the postings
knew who it was, the above message would be unnecessary.   If the
site does not know that it broke it, the above message would
be useless.  Also, how is the hapless non-recipient supposed to know
where the break is?
As for PKARC 3.5, MANY people did not get part 1.  Reposting
sounds to me a lot less complicated than what you suggest.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan