Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ogccse!blake!ndsuvax!ncoverby From: ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: Important new program: cleanit.c Summary: how about "unshar"? Or at least let unshar be usable! Message-ID: <2992@ndsuvax.UUCP> Date: 7 Oct 89 22:24:51 GMT References: <3492@ast.cs.vu.nl> Reply-To: ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo Lines: 25 Uudecode on BSD skips everything up to the "begin" line, so stripping the header is unecessary. For shar files, there was a "unshar" program posted to comp.sources.unix several volumes ago that does a really nice job, and tries to make sure that the unshar program doesn't do anything nasty. I resent having to deal with uuencoded files just for Bitnet. Why don't the Bitnet people get together and nominate one person who is on both Usenet (via uucp or something that doesn't trash files) and Bitnet and have them uuencode all the postings? An aside question: has anybody on info-minix via the Internet had checksum problems when unsharing files? The postmaster on the node running the listserv distributing the group has promised me that his IBM won't mung postings for people on non-IBMs. Would asking for a summary of changes (not what lines were changed, but what features were added or "removed" [fixed]) be too much? Even though I blindly trust what Andy posts, I am wary of what other people's quick hacks will break. On the Unix bugs groups people describe the problem, tell how to reproduce it, and then provide the fix. I find the former two missing from this group most of the time. It's a credibility issue: do you really know what you're doing well enough for me to trust your fix? -- Glen Overby uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby (UUCP) ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)