Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!netsys!vector!chip From: chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: alt.sources archiving Message-ID: <763@vector.UUCP> Date: 19 Mar 89 04:16:31 GMT References: <727@vector.UUCP> <10985@well.UUCP> Reply-To: chip@vector.UUCP (Chip Rosenthal) Organization: Dallas Semiconductor Lines: 33 In article <10985@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer writes: [ in response to my proposal to use secondary headers in alt.sources ] >Why do you need Submitted-by: when you already have From:? Why do you >need a number, especially if it's only going to change once per year? To minimize the chance of breaking existing archiving programs. >Why do you need a separate Archive-name:, when some simple conventions >for what goes in the Subject: line would work even better? So I don't have to write a new archiving program. >Why do you >want to store the postings in a filename specified by the poster, with >all the security issues that brings up? Are you saying that comp.sources.unix should stop using archive names?? >What's wrong with just saving the posting in a numbered file, grepping >out the From: and Subject: lines to save in an index, and compressing >the file? Boy...that's a giant step backwards. What's wrong with doing all of that, but using a meaningful name instead of a random number? I'm sorry, I missed the counterproposal in your message. Were you trying to say that one shouldn't try to archive alt.sources? Or were you just trying to trash my suggestion? Nor have you explained why this is such a crummy idea for alt.sources even though it seems to work for the other sources newsgroups. -- Chip Rosenthal chip@vector.UUCP | -------- watch this space -------- Dallas Semiconductor 214-450-5337 | - real domain address coming soon -