Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!decwrl!ucbvax!talos.pm.com!kjones
From: kjones@talos.pm.com (Kyle Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Archive-name
         (was Re: wp2latex (1 of 4))
Message-ID: <9008211455.AA02499@talos.pm.com>
Date: 21 Aug 90 14:55:19 GMT
References: <1990Aug13.162617.25478@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 18

Larry A. Shurr writes:
 > It greatly reduces the amount of work for those who administer
 > archives of posted materials.  It's not much to ask in order
 > to assist those who provide this service.

The poster of a useful program might well think it's not much to
ask that recipients look at the article and decide where to file
it.  Some people don't care if their program is archived or not.

Also, how are users supposed to know what's a good name to put in
the Archive-name header?  What happens if there's a naming
collision with something already in someone's archive?  If the
archiver is going to provide a decent index, they'll have to look
at the articles anyway, in order to prepare it.  (The output of
"ls -lR" in the top-level of the archive is not a decent index.)

BTW, I'm all for helping the archivers, but I'd like to see the
benefits of Archive-name explained in a bit more detail.