Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!glacier!hplabs!tektronix!reed!iscuva!davids
From: davids@iscuva.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.adm
Subject: Re: "rmgroup net" stupidity
Message-ID: <219@iscuva.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-May-86 03:54:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: iscuva.219
Posted: Sun May  4 03:54:39 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 8-May-86 22:05:14 EDT
References: <1978@bullwinkle.cs.cornell.edu>
Reply-To: davids@iscuva.UUCP (David Schmidt)
Organization: ISC Systems Corporation, Spokane, Wa.
Lines: 28

In article <1978@bullwinkle.cs.cornell.edu> (Larry Parmelee) writes:
>Did anyone else out there get bit by the recent "newgroup/rmgroup net"
>exchange?  I haven't seen any comments; Is it just that everyone else
>is still recovering?
>[...]
>My interm solution is to modify the rmgroups script [...]
>The intent of these mods is:  When removing
>say "net.group", first only ordinary files (not directories!) in
>SPOOLDIR/net/group/* are removed, and finally a simple "rmdir" is done
>on SPOOLDIR/net/group/.  This rmdir will fail (thank goodness!) if
>SPOOLDIR/net/group/ is not empty

  I was bit slightly by this myself.  I (through my own ignorance!)
did an rmgroup on net.  I only lost about 500K as I wondered what was
taking so long, halted the task and saw it was doing an 'rm -r'!  My
other machines downstream also have manual removal set so I was able
to write a script to pull the articles from the other machine (and
massage the address headers to match the first machines).
  I was going to make just the changes you made so I'm glad you beat
me to it and saved me the time!

------------------
! II      CCCCCC !  David Schmidt
! II  SSSSCC     !  ISC Systems Corp.
! II      CC     !  Spokane, WA
! IISSSS  CC     !  UUCP: ihnp4!tektronix!reed!iscuva!davids
! II      CCCCCC !  (509)927-5479
------------------