mike@vort.uucp (Mike Nemeth) (01/22/91)
In Article 1099 of comp.sources.wanted, Andy Purshottam (root@wdl1.wdl.loral.com) says... > Given the avail of the wonderful archie snarfing database, > is it appropriate that people no longer ask for locations of known > named programs, and given avail of bitftp, stop asking > for such to be mailed to them? Of course, appropriately vague > requests would still be welcome. As a first step, I have been mailing > offensively long archie output to thise making simple queries to c.s.w. Many sites are now censoring mail to/from such servers, leaving those of us without FTP access dead-in-the-water. If "simple" requests bug you so much, try unsubscribing to comp.sources.wanted. -- Vort Computing. Amazing code, incredible prices. Step right up. Mike Nemeth Vort Computing ...calgary!vort!mike
andy@spl28.loral.com (Andy Purshottam) (01/24/91)
>> sites are now censoring mail to/from such servers, leaving those >> of us without FTP access dead-in-the-water. If "simple" requests bug >> you so much, try unsubscribing to comp.sources.wanted. Bandwidth is bandwidth, from a human or an archive server. If your downstream sites don't want you to receive source, then however you get it, it's improper. The real solution is to educate people so they don't piss off their uucp neighbors. The reason I both post to and respond to c.s.w is that intelligent people are listening, who can give thoughtful responses to vague requests. The "solution" could be a partitoning of c.s.w into c.s.w.silly, and c.s.w.interesting, but a little education might be a better approach. With luck a fun FAQ will emerge from the archivst BoF later today. Andy