Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!chinet!randy
From: randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: PKARC 3.5
Message-ID: <1302@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jul-87 19:48:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: chinet.1302
Posted: Tue Jul 14 19:48:19 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Jul-87 01:28:18 EDT
References: <3780@osu-eddie.UUCP> <1809@ttrdc.UUCP> <422@ihaxa.ATT.COM> <1299@chinet.UUCP> <3439@ihlpg.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 23

In article <3439@ihlpg.ATT.COM> tan@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Bill Tanenbaum) writes:
>In article <1299@chinet.UUCP>, randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess) writes:
>< 	I received both postings just fine, so, please don't re-post.
>--------------------
>Pardon?  If the site along the newsfeed path who broke the postings
>knew who it was, the above message would be unnecessary.   If the
>As for PKARC 3.5, MANY people did not get part 1.  Reposting
>sounds to me a lot less complicated than what you suggest.

	Huh?  Repost a largish file that will be reposted once 
a month anyway?  What is to say that the same people won't miss
it again?  Again, if a person/site missed receiving some large
article that the majority of the world *did* receive, I believe 
that a request for some site/person to mail the file to them would
suffice.
	I guess I just can't understand why a *few* people missing
a post automatically justifies sending the file all over the
world again.

-- 
that's the biz, sweetheart.....
Randy Suess
..!ihnp4!chinet3rdenar