Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!greg
From: greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith)
Newsgroups: net.news.adm,net.news.sa,net.sources.d,net.wanted.sources
Subject: Re: Beware of Blindly Un-SHARing a File
Message-ID: <2555@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 13-Apr-86 04:16:06 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsri.2555
Posted: Sun Apr 13 04:16:06 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Apr-86 04:46:00 EST
References: <947@kitty.UUCP> <2407@prls.UUCP> <1439@garfield.columbia.edu>
Reply-To: greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 24
Keywords: ``Relink'' April Fool
Summary: an alternative?

Instead of using 'shar' to pack stuff, and 'sh' to unpack them, why not
just have *two* programs, one to pack and one to upack? ( maybe 'mar'
for 'mail-archive', and unmar).

Obviously, when you run a shar, you are handing conrol over to unknown
forces - a shar file could contain anything.
'unmar', on the other hand, would just read the 'mar' file and create
new files. No fuss, no  muss, safe.

Of course, nasty people could still put nasty things in the actual
* code *... but that's another question. At least this way you would
only have one level to check.

One of the advantages of the current 'shar' system is that there is
no problem with mismatched versions at opposite ends - there only
is one end. But the function of the 'mar' program should be simple
enough that it wouldn't be modified a lot, no?

An idea, anyway.

-- 
"If you aren't making any mistakes, you aren't doing anything".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith     University of Toronto      UUCP: ..utzoo!utcsri!greg