Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!hi-csc!slocum
From: slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Why "shar: Shell Archive  (v1.22)" is bad
Message-ID: <45df5a96.805@hi-csc.UUCP>
Date: 26 Sep 89 17:47:00 GMT
References: <1979@prune.bbn.com> <444@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Reply-To: slocum@hi-csc.UUCP (Brett Slocum)
Organization: csdd
Lines: 17

Well, I too dislike the 'continued'-style shar files.  Besides the
previously mentioned problems, my site
doesn't get multi-part postings in order, so it requires me to
either save the pieces and then unshar them (I usually use |unshar
straight from 'rn'), or to 'unread' all the parts until they all
arrive and then |unshar them.  If not all the parts come, then I
have to save them all (after having skipped them for the week or
so waiting for missing parts) and get the part from the archive
site.  With the other kind of shar, I can |unshar from 'rn' in
any order (usually) and if there are missing parts, I can simply
send to the archive site immediately.


-- 
Brett Slocum, Honeywell SSDC, Golden Valley, Minnesota
              | AIDS is a virus; George Bush
  or   | is a punishment from God.