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.