Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: "Archive-name:" proposed change
Keywords: multiple part postings
Message-ID: <6371@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: 29 Mar 89 00:02:07 GMT
References: <780@usl.usl.edu> <2464@ndsuvax.UUCP> <1187@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 46

In article <1187@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> greg@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Greg
Noel) recommends headers like:
>	Archive-name: fun/hangman/V01r01-src/Part01of03

In comp.binaries.ibm.pc, I make sure the Archive-name: is in legal
filename syntax for 4.xBSD, System V, and MS-DOS.  This allows the
archive name to be used by MS-DOS users too.

Perhaps what we need is a new header:

     Part-info:  total=9, first=part01, last=part09

The first field gives the total number of parts.  The second tells you
the archive-name of the first part, and the third tells you the
archive-name of the last part.  The *only* difference between the names
of the various parts should be in the last two characters, which should
be two decimal digits.  This provides all the information you need to
check for missing parts.

The Part-info header should occur only in the first part of a multipart
posting.  If the part-info header is found again on another part, the
header specifying a greater total= should replace the other.  This will
allow the part numbers to be corrected.

E.g., we initially post:

     Part-info:  total=7, first=part00, last=part06

This means that part00, part01, ..., part06 are the various parts.
Then the moderator suddenly realizes that another part is needed.  When
he posts this new part, he includes another Part-info: header:
  
     Part-info:  total=8, first=part00, last=part07

The archiving software finds another Part-info: header, notes that the
total count is now greater, and lets this new header supersede the old
Part-info header.

What if the total was too high?  I this case the moderator needs
to post the right number of parts anyway, with the superfluous
one(s) simply being place-holders with a summary line of the
type:  "place holder for incorrect part count -- may be deleted".
With any luck this should happen very rarely.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
                    ARPA:  dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu