Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: Archive-name
Message-ID: <18512@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 27 Aug 90 05:17:12 GMT
References: <1990Aug13.162617.25478@cbnews.att.com> <9008211455.AA02499@talos.pm.com> <18508@rpp386.cactus.org> <9ZE5:-G@ggpc2.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service
Lines: 26
X-Clever-Slogan: Recycle or Die.

In article <9ZE5:-G@ggpc2.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>*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.

Perhaps people already are using the Archive-Name: header the way they
are intended to be used.  Perhaps the postings with no Archive-Name: aren't
intended to be archived, either because the poster doesn't want you to
waste your time because she knows she is going to post the enhanced version
in two more days, or more possibly because it is just a beta-test version
that will be sent off to Brandon in a few weeks.

>So I'm on your side after all. Amazing, eh?

Well, my side is for natural selection - let those who are smart enough
to figure at the benefits of using/not using the Archive-Name: header
figure it out.  Before I agree that the Archive-Name: header is a
universally Swell Idea, I want to know what advantages not having that
header could possibly have.  Preventing a proliferation of incremental
improvements in the archives is one advantage that comes to mind.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"SCCS, the source motel!  Programs check in and never check out!"
		-- Ken Thompson