Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rls!randy
From: randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: PAK v2.10, part 1 of 2
Summary: I had the same thing.
Message-ID: <10371@rls.UUCP>
Date: 12 Nov 89 20:11:38 GMT
References: <5292@cps3xx.UUCP> <NELSON.89Nov8095447@image.clarkson.edu> <1038@chyde.uwasa.fi>
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 35

In article <1038@chyde.uwasa.fi>, ts@chyde.uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK) writes:
> In article <7569@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes:
> >In article <5327@cps3xx.UUCP> hendrick@frith.UUCP (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes:
> >
> >>In article <7407@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> hartung@amos.UUCP (Jeff Hartung) writes:
> >>As far as I know, the program is not infected with a virus.  I would not
> >
> >Well, I just downloaded PAK210.EXE, and tried to unpack it and PAK.EXE was
> >corrupted (BAD CRC) and would not unpack. This is one of the reasons why
> >comp.binaries.ibm.pc is moderated, and why I'm not taking PC binaries from
> 
> Please hold you horses and do not jump to conclusions quite yet.

Indeed I had the same problem.  I found it was only improper concatenation
of the two files, pak1_of_2 and pak2_of_2.  There was someones .sig
appended to the end of part 1.

Since there are so many variables in the posting of sources and binaries
among tons of special interest groups, I just make it my job to make sure
I do a thorough job of pounding on the distribution files before making
any public plea. 

While it is true some authors/distributors don't properly pack their
packages, we have to support more structured standards as time goes by
as well as watch for errant unpacking problems.  One of my pet peves is
a signature appended to every part of a multi-part posting.  Oh well,
we can't let the tyranny of little things hold us down. :-)

Cheers!

- randy

Usenet: randy@rls.uucp
Bangpath: ...<backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy
Internet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu