Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!network.ucsd.edu!slamont
From: slamont@network.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: REPOST lharc102A Part 01/04 BSD Unix to Amiga archives
Message-ID: <4475@network.ucsd.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 91 20:49:06 GMT
References: <1991Jan8.001457.28490@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <25736638@bfmny0.BFM.COM> <1991Jan9.001036.28469@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA
Lines: 23

In article <1991Jan9.001036.28469@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>Suggestions that the results of vandalism should be used to judge the merits
>of a source code distriution mechanism are warped at best.

Not quite so.  A well designed distribution mechanism would allow for damaged
postings, intentional or otherwise.

Clearly, taking a gonzo uuencoded source distribution and arbitrarily chopping
it into pieces leaves something to be desired (it that is indeed what was
done).

Now, obviously, it is difficult to guard against forged cancel messages.
However, it should be easier than you indicated in your posting to recover
from such net.malice.  Sometimes postings just don't get out.

							spl (the p stands for
							precisely the point)

-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (408) 646-2572 -- a guest at network.ucsd.edu --
NPS Confuser Center / Code 51 / Naval Postgraduate School / Monterey, CA 93943
"... most programmers don't even bother going to the metal on machines where
the metal is painful and there's no light to see by..." -J. Eric Townsend