daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower) (09/25/88)
In article <469@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM> greg%sentry@spar.slb.com (Greg Wageman) writes: >On an unrelated subject: > >I would like to vote for changing the "Subject:" lines of multi-part >postings to be all identical, and have the part numbers be somewhere >else. This is so that the "-S" option of rn can find all of the parts >of a posting before moving onto the next subject. With the part >numbers in the subject line, each part becomes effectively a different >subject as far as rn is concerned. > >Thanks. No thanks. A lot of archiving gets an Index from the Subject line. Without differences between parts 1 and N of a multipart posting in the Subject, it would be really hard to figure out what was what. Is "=" that hard to use in rn? -dB
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (09/26/88)
In article <426@gonzo.UUCP>, daveb@gonzo (Dave Brower) writes: >No thanks. A lot of archiving gets an Index from the Subject line. >Without differences between parts 1 and N of a multipart posting in the >Subject, it would be really hard to figure out what was what. With an extra "Part: ##" heading, automatic archiving could proceed just as nicely. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (09/27/88)
In article <14711@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >With an extra "Part: ##" heading, automatic archiving could proceed >just as nicely. the Archive-name: header which rich $alz and brandon add to their postings makes automatic archiving a snap. now, can they just remove the "part" stuff from the Subject: line??? -- John F. Haugh II (jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US) HASA, "S" Division "Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" -- Steve Elias
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (09/28/88)
John F. Haugh II <jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> writes: >the Archive-name: header which rich $alz and brandon add to their >postings makes automatic archiving a snap. Thanks! > now, can they just remove >the "part" stuff from the Subject: line??? Nope. I get more complaints when it's not there, and it's too useful to be able to see if you've got everything before unshar'ing, after re-mailing, etc. etc. /r$ PS: Please make it easier to read your articles by fixing your CAPS key... -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (09/30/88)
In article <426@gonzo.UUCP> daveb@gonzo.UUCP (Dave Brower) writes: >In article <469@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM> greg%sentry@spar.slb.com (Greg Wageman) writes: >> >>I would like to vote for changing the "Subject:" lines of multi-part >>postings to be all identical, and have the part numbers be somewhere >>else. This is so that the "-S" option of rn can find all of the parts >>of a posting before moving onto the next subject. With the part >>numbers in the subject line, each part becomes effectively a different >>subject as far as rn is concerned. >> >>Thanks. > >No thanks. A lot of archiving gets an Index from the Subject line. >Without differences between parts 1 and N of a multipart posting in the >Subject, it would be really hard to figure out what was what. > >Is "=" that hard to use in rn? As several other messages in this thread have pointed out, there are already other header lines containing this information on postings from some sources. It is a small effort to add these lines where they do not already exist. The two forms would be used in parallel for a transition period, to allow archiving software to be modified to use the new header lines, and then eventually the "Subject:" lines would become identical. However, any required changes mean that some considerable amount of USENET inertia must first be overcome; this is often a formidable task. As far as using "=", all this gets us under rn is a list of subjects in the newsgroup. It does not access each article so that we may save them in a common directory. Having all the "Subject:" lines be identical would mean that we would see *all* received parts of the posting, back to back, regardless of the order in which things are received. I guess not enough others feel this is a major gain. Oh well. Greg Wageman ARPA: greg%sentry@spar.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies BIX: gwage 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 74016,352 San Jose, CA 95110 GEnie: GWAGEMAN (408) 437-5198 UUCP: ...!decwrl!spar!sentry!greg ------------------ Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.
greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (09/30/88)
In article <1100@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >Nope. I get more complaints when it's not there, and it's too useful >to be able to see if you've got everything before unshar'ing, after >re-mailing, etc. etc. > /r$ >PS: Please make it easier to read your articles by fixing your CAPS key... I'm getting really sick of these sarcastic postings. If you know of a way to accomplish what is being discussed, then why don't you simply say it? I have not seen a command that will do what I want; if I had, I wouldn't have made the original suggestion. Perhaps you would like to restate your message? Greg Wageman ARPA: greg%sentry@spar.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies BIX: gwage 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 74016,352 San Jose, CA 95110 GEnie: GWAGEMAN (408) 437-5198 UUCP: ...!decwrl!spar!sentry!greg ------------------ Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.