Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: PKARC 3.5
Message-ID: <3462@ihlpg.ATT.COM>
Date: Wed, 15-Jul-87 14:30:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.3462
Posted: Wed Jul 15 14:30:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 03:09:44 EDT
References: <3780@osu-eddie.UUCP> <1809@ttrdc.UUCP> <422@ihaxa.ATT.COM> <1302@chinet.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 26
Summary: Requesting copies on the net doesn't work.

< >In article <1299@chinet.UUCP>, randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess) writes:
< >< 	I received both postings just fine, so, please don't re-post.
< >--------------------
< >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.
<---------
It doesn't automatically justify anything.  The moderator has final say.
If he does not wish to repost, fine.  I merely suggested that since people
from MANY different sites did not receive  part 1 of PKARC/PKXARC 3.5
that a reposting be considered.
I also requested someone to email me part 1 (in case it was not reposted).
I got ZERO copies in the mail.  So much for that idea.
I finally found someone who works down the hall here at the labs who had
a copy.  So I don't care any more.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan