hartung@amos.ling.ucsd.edu (Jeff Hartung) (11/10/89)
In article <NELSON.89Nov8095447@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >Binaries posted to comp.sys.ibm.pc or comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d do not >get archived on grape.ecs.clarkson.edu. If you have something that's >worth using, it's worth keeping. Send binaries to: > ibmpc-binaries%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com Not to mention that binaries posted to non-moderated newsgroups may be infected with nasties, may not be PD/Shareware/Freeware/EtcWare, may not work, or may not be of interest to many people. The practice of posting binary stuff to discussion groups may seem like a neato way to bypass the delay and hassle of waiting for a moderator to approve and post the sucker, but those of you who were around when c.b.i.p was unmoderated may also recall that the aforementioned difficulties almost got the newsgroup shut down. Send binaries to Rahul, wait for them to appear in c.b.i.p, and don't post binaries here (or to other unmoderated discussion groups). --Jeff Hartung-- Disclaimer: My opinions only, etc., etc., BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!... ARPA - hartung@amos.ucsd.edu UUCP - ucsd!amos.ucsd.edu!hartung
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (11/10/89)
In article <7407@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> hartung@amos.UUCP (Jeff Hartung) writes:
$Not to mention that binaries posted to non-moderated newsgroups may be
$infected with nasties, may not be PD/Shareware/Freeware/EtcWare, may not
$work, or may not be of interest to many people. The practice of posting
$binary stuff to discussion groups may seem like a neato way to bypass the
$delay and hassle of waiting for a moderator to approve and post the sucker,
$but those of you who were around when c.b.i.p was unmoderated may also recall
$that the aforementioned difficulties almost got the newsgroup shut down. Send
$binaries to Rahul, wait for them to appear in c.b.i.p, and don't post binaries
$here (or to other unmoderated discussion groups).
$ --Jeff Hartung--
Well Jeff, I am the guilty party who posted PAK v2.10 to c.b.i.p.d. I
did it only because I couldn't mail to Rahul. I have since been given
another address/route to try. (Thank you Keith.)
As far as I know, the program is not infected with a virus. I would not
have posted it if I knew it to be hazardous to your computer. In
addition, I am positive that it is shareware. Also, I know it was of
interest to at least 3 people, because they requested it. I did not
have any ill intentions - just problems with the out of date and
unmaintained routing tables here. Please forgive me, and have pity on
all of us who have to suffer through ~50%+ bounced mail. It's really
not any fun.troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) (11/10/89)
In article <5327@cps3xx.UUCP> hendrick@frith.UUCP (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: >In article <7407@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> hartung@amos.UUCP (Jeff Hartung) writes: >As far as I know, the program is not infected with a virus. I would not >have posted it if I knew it to be hazardous to your computer. In >addition, I am positive that it is shareware. Also, I know it was of >interest to at least 3 people, because they requested it. I did not >have any ill intentions - just problems with the out of date and >unmaintained routing tables here. Please forgive me, and have pity on >all of us who have to suffer through ~50%+ bounced mail. It's really >not any fun. Well, I just downloaded PAK210.EXE, and tried to unpack it and PAK.EXE was corrupted (BAD CRC) and would not unpack. This is one of the reasons why comp.binaries.ibm.pc is moderated, and why I'm not taking PC binaries from any where else from now on. At least from there I have a high degree of confidence that what I'm downloading is actually going to work. Living 60+ miles from work makes phone bill rather large and taking the time and expense of downloading stuff that doesn't work makes for a rather poor use of that time and expense. Don't know who originally said this, but "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" seems to apply here.. . -- Jeff Troeger - Citicorp (+) TTI "Of all the things I've lost, 3100 Ocean Park Bl. I miss my mind the most" Santa Monica, Ca. 90405 (213) 450-9111 x3153 Path: {retix|philabs|csun|psivax}!ttidca!troeger or troeger@ttidca.tti.com
troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) (11/11/89)
In article <7569@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes: >Well, I just downloaded PAK210.EXE, and tried to unpack it and PAK.EXE was >corrupted (BAD CRC) and would not unpack. This is one of the reasons why >comp.binaries.ibm.pc is moderated, and why I'm not taking PC binaries from any >where else from now on. At least from there I have a high degree of >confidence that what I'm downloading is actually going to work. Living 60+ >miles from work makes phone bill rather large and taking the time and expense >of downloading stuff that doesn't work makes for a rather poor use of that >time and expense. Looks like I'm gonna have to eat a little crow on this one. Turns out that I used the script I normally used when decoding binaries from the moderated group on PAK210, and because the cut marks were different, the script didn't work right and unfortunately uudecode didn't complain about it. Although I haven't downloaded it yet, there is a good indication that it will not have a problem. I'm still going to disregard binaries posted here though. It is too much a pain in the butt when there is no consistancy in how files are split and encoded. -- Jeff Troeger - Citicorp (+) TTI "Of all the things I've lost, 3100 Ocean Park Bl. I miss my mind the most" Santa Monica, Ca. 90405 (213) 450-9111 x3153 Path: {retix|philabs|csun|psivax}!ttidca!troeger or troeger@ttidca.tti.com
hartung@amos.ling.ucsd.edu (Jeff Hartung) (11/11/89)
In article <5327@cps3xx.UUCP> hendrick@frith.UUCP (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes:
#Well Jeff, I am the guilty party who posted PAK v2.10 to c.b.i.p.d. I
#did it only because I couldn't mail to Rahul. I have since been given
#another address/route to try. (Thank you Keith.)
#
#As far as I know, the program is not infected with a virus. I would not
#have posted it if I knew it to be hazardous to your computer. In
#addition, I am positive that it is shareware. Also, I know it was of
#interest to at least 3 people, because they requested it. I did not
#have any ill intentions - just problems with the out of date and
#unmaintained routing tables here. Please forgive me, and have pity on
#all of us who have to suffer through ~50%+ bounced mail. It's really
#not any fun.
Consider yourself forgiven :-) Seriously, though, it was not my
intention to accuse you of posting a program that was infected,
useless, or in violation of copyrights. Rather (as cliche as this may
sound) it is the precedent that is set when someone posts binaries to
discussion groups. I don't believe that anyone, back in the
unmoderated early days of c.b.i.p, intentionally posted stuff with
viruses, that wasn't PD, etc., but it happened. Also, duplicate
versions of programs were posted, reposts that were unnecessary
occurred, and the newsgroup was almost shut down because of it. Since
we have a moderated group for binaries, we should use it, and only it,
for distribution of programs. Those of you with problems getting mail
through to Rahul could post a brief request to this newsgroup asking
for help.
--Jeff Hartung--
Disclaimer: My opinions only, etc., etc., BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!...
ARPA - hartung@amos.ucsd.edu
UUCP - ucsd!amos.ucsd.edu!hartungruiu@dragos.uucp (dragos) (11/11/89)
I was going to email this, but I think someone should say this: Please do not post binaries to the discussion group. There is a moderated group for binaries. The .d on the end of this newsgroup name means discussion. The sudden appearance of a lot of large binaries here will play havoc with some sites article expiry times and space considerations. (now for diatribe) Some of us believe that binaries are a second class citizen anyways. Real programs come with source. -- Dragos Ruiu (ruiu@dragos.uucp) All system administrators should hand out alberta!dragos!ruiu a bottle of valium with every news-reader uunet!myrias!dr man page.
ts@chyde.uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK) (11/12/89)
In article <7569@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes: >In article <5327@cps3xx.UUCP> hendrick@frith.UUCP (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: > >>In article <7407@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> hartung@amos.UUCP (Jeff Hartung) writes: >>As far as I know, the program is not infected with a virus. I would not > >Well, I just downloaded PAK210.EXE, and tried to unpack it and PAK.EXE was >corrupted (BAD CRC) and would not unpack. This is one of the reasons why >comp.binaries.ibm.pc is moderated, and why I'm not taking PC binaries from any Please hold you horses and do not jump to conclusions quite yet. It is VERY very common to make errors in transfering files from the host to the PC, and this causes exactly the same problem that you have. Of course, this is not conclusive, but since in 99% or more cases the problem is this, it is advisable first to check for that possibility. Being a moderator of a file downloading site myself, this is my experince. But do note, that what I say does not vouch for your copy of PAK210.EXE, only that a handling error is by far the most likely reason. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: vakk::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) (11/13/89)
In article <1038@chyde.uwasa.fi>, ts@chyde.uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK) writes: > In article <7569@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes: > >In article <5327@cps3xx.UUCP> hendrick@frith.UUCP (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: > > > >>In article <7407@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> hartung@amos.UUCP (Jeff Hartung) writes: > >>As far as I know, the program is not infected with a virus. I would not > > > >Well, I just downloaded PAK210.EXE, and tried to unpack it and PAK.EXE was > >corrupted (BAD CRC) and would not unpack. This is one of the reasons why > >comp.binaries.ibm.pc is moderated, and why I'm not taking PC binaries from > > Please hold you horses and do not jump to conclusions quite yet. Indeed I had the same problem. I found it was only improper concatenation of the two files, pak1_of_2 and pak2_of_2. There was someones .sig appended to the end of part 1. Since there are so many variables in the posting of sources and binaries among tons of special interest groups, I just make it my job to make sure I do a thorough job of pounding on the distribution files before making any public plea. While it is true some authors/distributors don't properly pack their packages, we have to support more structured standards as time goes by as well as watch for errant unpacking problems. One of my pet peves is a signature appended to every part of a multi-part posting. Oh well, we can't let the tyranny of little things hold us down. :-) Cheers! - randy Usenet: randy@rls.uucp Bangpath: ...<backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy Internet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
hadgraft@civeng.monash.edu.au (Roger Hadgraft) (11/14/89)
In article <7569@ttidca.TTI.COM>, troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) writes: > > Well, I just downloaded PAK210.EXE, and tried to unpack it and PAK.EXE was > corrupted (BAD CRC) and would not unpack. This is one of the reasons why > comp.binaries.ibm.pc is moderated, and why I'm not taking PC binaries from any > where else from now on. I downloaded it and it worked fine. Looks like the problem was between the Net and your place. -- Roger Hadgraft | hadgraft@civeng.monash.edu.au Lecturer in Civil Engineering | phone: +61 3 565 4983 Monash University | fax: +61 3 565 3409 Clayton, Vic. 3168. Australia. |