Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!ub.d.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!aslakson
From: aslakson@cs.umn.edu (Brian Aslakson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: disk Cataloger/Organizer - NO MORE MAIL!
Message-ID: <1990Aug15.164415.26415@cs.umn.edu>
Date: 15 Aug 90 16:44:15 GMT
References: <1990Aug14.095941.2056@vaxa.cc.uwa.oz.au> <1941@hsi86.hsi.UUCP>
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Lines: 26

kenney@hsi.UUCP (Brian Kenney) writes:

>In article <1990Aug14.095941.2056@vaxa.cc.uwa.oz.au> a_dent@vaxa.cc.uwa.oz.au writes:
> 
>>ENOUGH ALREADY!!!
>>
>>Thanks for all the responses...

>You should cancel your original article instead of posting a second.
>By the time people read your second article, they have already sent
>you info.  If you're using rn, type a "C" when you're viewing
>the article you'd like to cancel.

Canceling isn't an instantaneous process, and doesn't always work.  Strangely
enough, an example is in my reading of this group today.  There is an article
about SoundMover and there is another article by the same person, dated the
next day (14th then 15t) which states that he canceled the Aug 14th article.
Yet, although I see the Aug 15th post, I still see the Aug 14th post.  (Dates
provided to diferentiate).  I don't know if that's our mail system, a fluke,
or generally true.  A local expert (ie someone who knows more than me) says that
canceling is nice, but once an article leaves a site, you can consider it gone.

Brian

P.S.  I use nn which lets me see all subject lines before reading any posts,
so his post would have stopped me.