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