Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: alt.sources.d Subject: Re: REPOST lharc102A Part 01/04 BSD Unix to Amiga archives Message-ID: <1991Jan9.001036.28469@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 9 Jan 91 00:10:36 GMT References: <1991Jan8.001457.28490@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <25736638@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 30 xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: Whether from stupidity or malice, part 2 of the previous four part posting got cancelled, so here comes the whole thing again, as I have no record of where the previous split on the uuencoded data was done. ---- tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) writes: Speaking of inherent robustness, eh? We can't have polite 'REPOST - Part 4' source postings any more because binary gibberish doesn't split that well. So if there's an error, we ship the whole huge twice-compressed thing TWICE! ---- Email interactions with the moderator of alt.sources.index provided a copy of what turned out to be a forged cancellation message; a copy was posted to news.admin. Some person with an axe to grind about uuencoded source archives chose to do a little net.vandalism rather than engage in dialog. Since the control message was inserted directly at uunet.uu.net, it is probably impossible to trace this childish behavior back to its originator. The total repost turned out to have been unnecessary, as the original was still online at this site, but I found that out considerably later when I went back to cancel the remaining three articles of the original posting and found the cancelled one still online here (of course). By that point it seemed prudent to continue on the existing course. Suggestions that the results of vandalism should be used to judge the merits of a source code distriution mechanism are warped at best. Kent, the man from xanth.