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