Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:338 comp.sys.ibm.pc:16017
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!panda!teddy!jpn
From: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Source code newsgroup for MS-DOS
Message-ID: <4832@teddy.UUCP>
Date: 30 May 88 17:17:18 GMT
References: <1555@bu-tyng.bu.edu> <3186@bsu-cs.UUCP> <11803@ut-sally.UUCP> <7978@brl-smoke.ARPA> <4827@teddy.UUCP> <4298@sphinx.uchicago.edu> <7985@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 18

In article <7985@brl-smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl.arpa (Keith Petersen <w8sdz>) writes:
>When Usenet can guarantee error-free and non-truncated transmission of clear
>text files  I will agree to posting clear text files.

I'm afraid that Keith is blowing smoke in our collective eyes.  The
most common form of corruption under USENET is either missing or
truncated files.  Shar format detects both of these problems quite
nicely, thank you.  (ARC is not immune to either of these problems,
either, although I will admit that the checksums are nice).

I'm not saying that "shar" is perfect.  Just that we don't yet have
anything better.  All other source groups use "shar":  If we want
MSDOS sources, we should stick to the established convention.
-- 
     john nelson

UUCP:	{decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn
smail:	jpn@genrad.com