kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) (01/21/90)
I've been complaining about the stuff showing up in comp.sys.mac.binaries
with out providing any possibile solutions other than "keep demos out."
Not terribly helpful on my part. Cory Kempf suggested to me that a priority
scheme might work and I tend to agree with him. Several classifications
could be created and all submissions could be catagorized on submission.
So, instead of one queue, multiple queues would be running. When the highest
priority queue was exhaused, stuff would come out of the next one. (This
is hardly original thinking, of course.) Given the available bandwidth,
some things might never get out, but at least they'd still have a chance
and the "important" stuff might get out sooner. Defining "important" is
the trick. I'll suggest the following with the assumption that suggestions
for changes will swamp me. None of this is binding, of course, as I don't
have any control over the distribution itself.
Classifications:
1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature.
2) Original freeware that fits in one article.
3) Original shareware that fits in one article.
4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications.
4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.]
5) Multipart shareware.
6) Demo/crippleware.
I remember when Macintosh binaries first started appearing on the net
and then when the first multipart binaries started appearing. Looking back on
those times it seems that a lot of the best stuff fit into one article.
With StuffIt available, even some reasonably sizeable packages will fit into
one article. These smaller packages frequently fill a gap in commercial or
are an example of something new and innovative. The larger ones are frequently
demos, technical notes (something large that I *do* like to see), and games.
(Exceptions do exist, of course.) As I'd prefer to see the gaps filled and
innovative ideas, my classification scheme favors such things. It also should
enable more people to get their ideas out rapidly.
Questions, comments, flames, etc most welcome.
-David C. Kovar
Consultant ARPA: kovar@popvax.harvard.edu
Eclectic Associates BITNET: corwin@harvarda.bitnet
Ma Bell: 617-646-0428 MacNET: DKovar
"It is easier to get forgiveness than permission."
[All opinions expressed are my own. Noone else assumes responsibility for me.]remco@tnoibbc.UUCP (Remco Bruyne) (01/22/90)
In article <1330@husc6.harvard.edu> kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) writes: [free translation of article: ' my proposal for a classification scheme for comp.mac.binaries is:] >Classifications: > 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. > 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. > 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. > 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. > 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] > 5) Multipart shareware. > 6) Demo/crippleware. I agree with this scheme, but wouldn't mind if the multipart commercial demos were left out. There are enough server machines, so an announcement would suffice. Remco -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Remco Bruijne USENET: remco@tnoibbc PHONE: +31 15 606437 ------------------------------------------------------------------
leo@duttnph.tudelft.nl (Leo Breebaart) (01/22/90)
David C. Kovar suggests a priority scheme for comp.binaries.mac: >Classifications: > 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. > 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. > 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. > 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. > 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] > 5) Multipart shareware. > 6) Demo/crippleware. > Questions, comments, flames, etc most welcome. This is in my opinion a very reasonable classification, and besides saying so I also want to take the opportunity to add my voice to the growing grumbles of those who are very unhappy with the way that comp.binaries.mac is currently being run. Who *does* decide the order of posting in that group anyhow, and how come we haven't heard from him/her yet? This discussion has been going on some time now, and we might at least get an opinion or justification from the moderator. Leo Breebaart (leo @ duttnph.tudelft.nl)
rht@smsdpg.uu.net (Randy Thompson) (01/22/90)
From article <1330@husc6.harvard.edu>, by kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar): > [deleted] > Several classifications could be created and all submissions could be > catagorized on submission. So, instead of one queue, multiple queues > would be running. When the highest priority queue was exhaused, stuff > would come out of the next one. > [deleted] > Classifications: > 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. > 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. > 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. > 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. > 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] > 5) Multipart shareware. > 6) Demo/crippleware. Hooray! I also an annoyed by the large volume of traffic created by the Demo/Crippleware products and the effect that they have on other "important" software. I am not saying that demos, etc. shouldnt get posted, but they should go to the back of the queue [IMHO]. I would love to see the above listed scheme implemented even tho it also has its failings. It would be nice if the moderators could monitor c.s.m to see the things that folks are hollering for (for example the mac port of uupc) but I realize that this is impractical. I could even forsee posters getting friends to "holler" for their product so that it would get out, generating even more traffic than there already is. No system will satisfy all, but this one has a good chance of satisfying most of the folks. Go for it! _________________________________________________________________________ Randy Thompson | uunet!smsdpg!rht -- Office SMS Data Products Group, Inc. | uunet!smsdpg!tailchasr!rht -- Mac@home 703/648-9400 | _________________________________________________________________________ * Constructive criticism is always appreciated * Send Flames to: Trash%tailchasr@smsdpg.UUCP _________________________________________________________________________
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) (01/23/90)
DK> Classifications:
DK> 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature.
DK> 2) Original freeware that fits in one article.
DK> 3) Original shareware that fits in one article.
DK> 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications.
DK> 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.]
DK> 5) Multipart shareware.
DK> 6) Demo/crippleware.
I couldn't agree with this scheme more. I cast my vote.
--
==============================================================================
(.) (.) | Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 | BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A
u | USENET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu | 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725
\___/ | BITNET: macman@wpi.bitnet | Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBShodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) (01/23/90)
>DK> Classifications: >DK> 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. >DK> 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. >DK> 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. >DK> 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. >DK> 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] >DK> 5) Multipart shareware. >DK> 6) Demo/crippleware. mostly I like this idea, except that I think that Technotes should be given higher priority, probably 1.5 or 2.5. The quick desemination of this sort of info benefits everyone in the mac community. Josh Hodas .. .. .. ------------------------- Josh Hodas (hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu) 4223 Pine Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 222-7112 (home) (215) 898-5423 (school office)
jpb@umbio.miami.edu (Joe Block) (01/23/90)
In article <1330@husc6.harvard.edu> kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) writes: >So, instead of one queue, multiple queues would be running. When the highest >priority queue was exhaused, stuff would come out of the next one. (This < Stuff Deleted> > >Classifications: > 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. > 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. > 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. > 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. > 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] > 5) Multipart shareware. > 6) Demo/crippleware. How about 1) Latest virus buster software 2) 1 article freeware 3) Multipart freeware 4) Misc stuff 5) Single article shareware 6) Multiple article shareware And eliminate the crippleware. Just have 1 article telling what site(s) have it available for anonymous FTP. Why should the net pay for some company's advertising? -- Joe Block jpb@umbio.miami.edu There was a young poet named Dan, whose poetry would never scan, when told this was so, He said, Yes I know, It's because I try to fit every possible sylable into the last line that I can.
jnelson@gauche.enet.dec.com (Jeff Nelson) (01/23/90)
> DK> Classifications: > DK> 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. > DK> 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. > DK> 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. > DK> 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. > DK> 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] > DK> 5) Multipart shareware. > DK> 6) Demo/crippleware. > > I couldn't agree with this scheme more. I cast my vote. I suggest the following classification be added to the above list: age. That is, the older the submission gets, the higher its priority becomes. That way it is eventually guaranteed to appear on comp.binaries.mac. -Jeff E. Nelson -Digital Equipment Corporation -Internet: jnelson@tle.enet.dec.com -Affiliation given for identification purposes only.
ebert@arisia.Xerox.COM (Robert Ebert) (01/23/90)
In article <7667@shlump.nac.dec.com> jnelson@gauche.enet.dec.com (Jeff Nelson) writes: >> DK> Classifications: > >> DK> 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. >> DK> 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. >> DK> 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. >> DK> 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. >> DK> 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] >> DK> 5) Multipart shareware. >> DK> 6) Demo/crippleware. >> >I suggest the following classification be added to the above list: >age. That is, the older the submission gets, the higher its priority >becomes. That way it is eventually guaranteed to appear on comp.binaries.mac. I'd suggest NOT adopting a increasing w/age priority scheme. If there's lots of new useful freeware or shareware, I'd rather see that than an older commercial demo. Basically, comp.binaries.mac should not be used for advertising for commercial products. This is, essentially, what cripple- ware is. A priority scheme lets the more 'important' information get out first, but also provides a reasonable way to keep the binaries coming. Another useful 'feature' for the group might be a regular (weekly) update of what's queued. So we know what to expect and what has arrived for submission. All this, of course, places an increased burden on the moderator. (Why don't we ever hear from him/her?) But the increased workload seems little enough. --Bob
news@calgary.UUCP (Network News Manager) (01/23/90)
From: sharp@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) Path: cpsc!sharp kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) writes: > [stuff about complaints about comp.binaries.mac] >Classifications: > 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. > 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. > 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. > 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. > 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] > 5) Multipart shareware. > 6) Demo/crippleware. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES !!!!!!!!!!!!! I totaly agree with Mr. Kovar's sentiments. It is most annoying to wait for the 12 part piece of demo/crippleware to pass by and something interesting to come along. I would even go so far as to suggest a new group altogether. Something like comp.binaries.mac.demos so that I can unsubscribe to the newsgroup. After all, the corporations are not paying for this net are they ? So why should they be allowed to sell their stuff through it !?!? maurice Maurice Sharp MSc. Student University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@ksi.cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 ...!alberta!calgary!sharp
CXT105@PSUVM.BITNET (Christopher Tate) (01/23/90)
In article <1330@husc6.harvard.edu>, kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) says: >Classifications: > 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. > 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. > 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. > 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. > 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] > 5) Multipart shareware. > 6) Demo/crippleware. I like it. Although I really don't have much of a problem with corporations using the net to post demos (after all, they do help support the cost of maintaining the net!), I definitely like the proposed emphasis on freelance shareware/freeware. I strongly support the current method of handling the Tech Notes, though: one big batch of them all at once, periodically. This way, it's much harder to miss them when they come around. :-) ------- Christopher Tate | "And as I watch the drops of rain | Weave their weary paths and die, cxt105@psuvm.psu.edu | I know that I am like the rain; {...}!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!cxt105 | There but for the grace of you go I." cxt105@psuvm.bitnet | -- Simon & Garfunkle
denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) (01/24/90)
kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) writes: >Classifications: > 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. > 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. > 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. > 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. > 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] > 5) Multipart shareware. > 6) Demo/crippleware. I am interested in the opinion of Roger L. Long, the comp.binaries.mac moderator. He knows the scripts that he uses and how he can handle various modifications. I would be willing to let him select whatever priority scheme he thinks suitable. If, for example, he finds that he would like the sole criterion to be filesize because he can totally automate the process, i could live with this. I would like to propose that he increase the daily flow and clear the backlog when net traffic drops. This happens over christmas, spring and summer breaks. -- William C. DenBesten is denbeste@bgsu.edu or denbesten@bgsuopie.bitnet
spencer@hydroplane.cis.ohio-state.edu (Stephen N. Spencer) (01/24/90)
In article <5360@bgsuvax.UUCP> denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) writes: > >I am interested in the opinion of Roger L. Long, the comp.binaries.mac >moderator. > So would I. He's been conspicuous in his absence during this debate. >I would like to propose that he increase the daily flow and clear the >backlog when net traffic drops. This happens over christmas, spring >and summer breaks. > I'll cast my vote AGAINST this measure. Short cycle times (lots of site only keep news around three days) combined with low net readership during these times would substantially increase the number of "I missed piece X of Y of such-and-such." We see that under the current system during breaks, increasing the net traffic during these times would only be worse. I will, however, cast my vote FOR the proposed criteria for distribution of software in this newsgroup. -=- Stephen N. Spencer |"For a successful technology, reality must take ACCAD, 1224 Kinnear Rd. | precedence over public relations, for Nature Columbus OH 43212 | cannot be fooled." - Richard P. Feynman spencer@heinlein.cgrg.ohio-state.edu OR spencer@cis.ohio-state.edu
jak9213@helios.TAMU.EDU (John Kane) (01/24/90)
In article <2394@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> sharp@ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca.UUCP (Maurice Sharp) writes: > >I would even go so far as to >suggest a new group altogether. Something like >comp.binaries.mac.demos so that I can unsubscribe to the newsgroup. > > maurice >Maurice Sharp MSc. Student >University of Calgary Computer Science Department >2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@ksi.cpsc.UCalgary.CA >Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 ...!alberta!calgary!sharp I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion for a new newsgroup. As a news administrator, I would like to be able to put the demo binaries on a shorter expire fuse, they take up soooo much room. :-) Maybe it would be possible for it to be moderated by the same person (Roger Long, I think). It would then be possible, if time permitted, for the moderator to redirect demos to the proper group if someone made a mistake and posted to c.b.mac. :-) If I hear enough back from folks, I will initiate the new newsgroup procedure and see if it has enough merit to pass. If not, c'est la vi. John Arthur Kane, Systems Analyst, Microcomputer Support and Training Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 (409) 845-9999 jak9213@helios.tamu.edu profs: x043jk@tamvm1.tamu.edu
david@jc3b21.UUCP (David Quarles) (01/24/90)
From article <7065@wpi.wpi.edu>, by macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg): > DK> Classifications: > DK> 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. . . . > DK> 6) Demo/crippleware. > > I couldn't agree with this scheme more. I cast my vote. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Me too !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! =-=-= Email: david@jc3b21.UUCP -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dave =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EOT
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (01/24/90)
As quoted from <2394@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP> by news@calgary.UUCP (Network News Manager): +--------------- | After all, the corporations are not paying for this net are they ? So | why should they be allowed to sell their stuff through it !?!? +--------------- Wrong thing to say. *Someone's* paying to pass all these megabytes-per-day of news... and, unless you are paying hefty fees (on the order of hunderds a month, at least) to read news, it isn't you. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@cwjcc.cwru.edu *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*
fry@brauer.harvard.edu (Goggles Paizsano) (01/24/90)
In article <1076@dutrun.UUCP> leo@duttnph.UUCP (Leo Breebaart) writes: >David C. Kovar suggests a priority scheme for comp.binaries.mac: > >>Classifications: >> 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. >> 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. >> 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. >> 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. >> 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] >> 5) Multipart shareware. >> 6) Demo/crippleware. >> Questions, comments, flames, etc most welcome. > >This is in my opinion a very reasonable classification, and besides saying so >I also want to take the opportunity to add my voice to the growing grumbles >of those who are very unhappy with the way that comp.binaries.mac is >currently being run. > >Who *does* decide the order of posting in that group anyhow, and how come we >haven't heard from him/her yet? This discussion has been going on some time >now, and we might at least get an opinion or justification from the moderator. Two years ago I complained over the net about the moderation of comp.binaries.mac, and I was resoundingly shouted down by the masses who overwhelming felt that it was fine the way it was. It turned out that the moderator, Roger Long, made no decisions about posting software, but just passed everything through. In fact, Mr. Long seemed so insulted by my suggestion that he was doing the wrong thing, he posted that he was too busy and didn't want to be the moderator anymore, but, as far as I know, no one step forward to take his place. Now everyone is coming up with schemes, algorithms, and philosophies for managing comp.binaries.mac, and I think Mr. Long is already doing the job under duress. If someone else wants to do it, let him or her volunteer. I don't think we should impose our will on the current moderator. In the meantime, I vote for the establishment of comp.binaries.mac.demo. Incidentally, previously I was complaining about the posting of (IMHO) silly little programs that cost the net money, not the posting of demos. Apparently the latter issue has raised more ire. David Fry fry@huma1.harvard.EDU Department of Mathematics fry@huma1.bitnet Harvard University ...!harvard!huma1!fry Cambridge, MA 02138
russ@key.COM (Russell Donnan) (01/25/90)
In article <5360@bgsuvax.UUCP> denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) writes: >I would like to propose that he increase the daily flow and clear the >backlog when net traffic drops. This happens over christmas, spring >and summer breaks. >William C. DenBesten is denbeste@bgsu.edu or denbesten@bgsuopie.bitnet What this would mean to the netnews community which receives ..binaries only sporadically is that we would receive less than we already do. From seeing the traffic here from sites asking for re-posts of portions of binaries, it would seem more logical to strengthen, not lessen this form of communication. I attribute the losses to the priority that some sites give comp.sys.mac.binaries, and news in general. If we keep it small, we'll get more. I would like to cast my vote in favor of disallowing demo programs on comp.sys.mac.binaries.-- Russ Donnan (415) 623-2121 Amdahl Corporation, Key Computer Laboratories, Fremont, CA, USA russ@key.amdahl.com, ...!{pacbell,sgi,amdahl}!key!russ -To capture the essence of an opinion takes but one lawyer.
joe@gistdev.gist.com (Joe Brownlee) (01/25/90)
In article <1330@husc6.harvard.edu> kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) writes: > 1) Latest virus software or items of similar nature. > 2) Original freeware that fits in one article. > 3) Original shareware that fits in one article. > 4) One article items that don't fit in above classifications. > 4) Multipart freeware. [Technotes included.] > 5) Multipart shareware. > 6) Demo/crippleware. While I agree with this in principle, I think that Tech Notes must have a higher priority. They do benefit everyone in the long-run. I am _not_ a fan of crippleware, though I don't mind if it's posted -- I'd just rather see it get lowest priority (I rarely if ever save any crippleware myself). I also don't think that 2- or 3-part free/shareware should be relegated to the end of the queue, but I could sure do without the 10- and 12-part demos. I do wish that there would be a little more consideration given to those who run c.b.m, though. Personal attacks and such don't gain anyone anything. I'm sure that these folks are trying to serve the Mac community as best they can without devoting their whole lives to looking at BinHex files. Give them a chance to consider the suggestions from this group and act on them before you flame them. I, for one, appreciate their service! ========== Joe Brownlee, Global Information Systems Technology, Inc. =======O== 1800 Woodfield Drive, Savoy, Illinois 61874 (217) 352-1165 E-mail: joe@gistdev.gist.com <or> {uunet,uiucuxc}!gistdev!joe The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank. -- Montgomery Scott Go ahead. Pay attention to anything that _I_ say. Start a trend.
kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) (01/25/90)
In article <1076@dutrun.UUCP> leo@duttnph.UUCP (Leo Breebaart) writes: >Who *does* decide the order of posting in that group anyhow, and how come we >haven't heard from him/her yet? This discussion has been going on some time >now, and we might at least get an opinion or justification from the moderator. I started this mess so I'd like to see if I can put the brakes on it a bit. Roger Long (I think I've the name right) has been moderating the binaries group for at least two years, maybe more. Moderation of an information group is bad enough - you have to read through the articles, pick the ones to go out, post them, answer hate mail, and the like. Moderating a group that distributes software requires all of the above, plus testing the stuff (usually) plus binhexing it, breaking it down into net sized chunks, and posting it. Now scripts can do some of this, but only so much. It takes a LOT of work. Worse still, noone notices it 'til something goes wrong. I'm a very good example of that. As long as the postings suited my needs I never once said "Thank you". Now it seems that my dissatisfaction with the postings isn't limited to me (I've only heard one person say that demos should stay and noone has objected to the classification scheme.) but we still have to take Roger's point of view. If he's already working at peak efficiency, even changing his current methods is going to be a problem. If we ask for something that requires more work he may just throw up his hands and forget it. And I wouldn't blame him. Now that we've seen that a priority queue scheme is reasonably popular, does anyone have any good ideas on how to implement it? Keep in mind that you've got to take a number of articles that are mailed to you, possibly glue them together, create a file that you can move to your Mac to test, then, if it passes, break the file into net sized chunks, put an informative header on it, drop it into some sort of queue, and then get something out of the queue and ship it off to the net. Serious suggestions for doing this would be appreciated. If we can find a way to implement this scheme without increasing Roger's workload we have a better chance of actually seeing it happen. hea -David C. Kovar Consultant ARPA: kovar@popvax.harvard.edu Eclectic Associates BITNET: corwin@harvarda.bitnet Ma Bell: 617-646-0428 MacNET: DKovar "It is easier to get forgiveness than permission." [All opinions expressed are my own. Noone else assumes responsibility for me.]
kovar@popvax.harvard.edu (David C. Kovar) (01/25/90)
In article <1356@husc6.harvard.edu> fry@brauer.harvard.edu (Goggles Paizsano) writes: >Now everyone is coming up with schemes, algorithms, and >philosophies for managing comp.binaries.mac, and I think Mr. >Long is already doing the job under duress. If someone else >wants to do it, let him or her volunteer. I don't think we >should impose our will on the current moderator. I actually did volunteer at the time but then moved to a site without net access and withdrew my application. I am, once again, moving to a site without net access (my house!) and would not have a machine to provide moderation from. Now, if the following conditions were met, I'd be happy to moderate the group: 1) We figure out some way to do a priority queue using scripts. 2) Someone in the Boston area provides me with access to a "well connected" machine. (If you want to be really generous, I'd be happy to put a Sun in my house and get a connection to NEARNet!) -David C. Kovar Consultant ARPA: kovar@popvax.harvard.edu Eclectic Associates BITNET: corwin@harvarda.bitnet Ma Bell: 617-646-0428 MacNET: DKovar "It is easier to get forgiveness than permission." [All opinions expressed are my own. Noone else assumes responsibility for me.]