Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: Archive-name
Message-ID: <9ZE5:-G@ggpc2.ferranti.com>
Date: 24 Aug 90 03:48:10 GMT
References: <1990Aug13.162617.25478@cbnews.att.com> <9008211455.AA02499@talos.pm.com> <18508@rpp386.cactus.org>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 12

In article <18508@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> What is wrong with Peter's insistence that everyone add an
> Archive-Name: header is the incorrect assumption that everyone
> wants to have that particular version of that particular
> program archived.

*If* people regularly used Archive-headers for stuff they did want archived,
it would be reasonable to leave programs that didn't have it unarchived. But
the way it is we have to save *everything* and look at it individually, since
we never know what is real and what isn't.

So I'm on your side after all. Amazing, eh?
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com