Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!skep2!wcs From: wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.[ho95c]) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Call for discussion: comp.sources.archives Message-ID: <233@skep2.ATT.COM> Date: 5 Sep 88 20:49:43 GMT References: <222@pigs.UUCP> <6031@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <236@pigs.UUCP> <478@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR <362@pigs.UUCP> <6146@dasys1.UUCP> <1635@datapg.MN.ORG> Reply-To: wcs@skep2.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.[ho95c],2G218,x0705,) Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Center 4632, Holmdel, NJ Lines: 19 In article <1635@datapg.MN.ORG> sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) writes: :In article <6146@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: :>Would archive sites be tempted to post their entire file directory listings, :If the list is 62K (500 files), a full list is no problem. For a large :archive site, the question is relevant to this discussion. The UUNET archive :list is 225K (1100 files) with no comments, with comments it should be twice :its present size (it presently is in `ls -l` format). Why so large? Most of the archive postings I've seen from various places are about 80 char/file, and if uunet archives are like comp.sources postings, half the files only need an abbreviated listing (foo/part7 60000 char.) 1100 files ought to be about 50-60K. In any case, we certainly don't need *.archives and *.archives.d. -- #Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218 Holmdel NJ 201-949-0705 ho95c.att.com!wcs # Now I don't mean to insult the intelligence of the younger people here, # but you really shouldn't try fire-eating on your own. You shouldn't # even be smoking cigarrettes like us ....... Unless you want to look cool.