Re: New archive format
Nov 03, 1996 11:38 AM
by Maxim Osinovsky
I do not like the idea for these reasons:
1. To retrieve archived files, I previously
needed to know just one bit of information, date. Now I need to know two
matching bits, date and the digest number; as there is no one-to-one
correspondence between those (some days there may be two or three digests
lumped together, some other days there may be no digests), I need to go
first to the index to correctly match dates and digest numbers, i.e. this
becomes a double-step procedure which does not sound like a smart idea.
If you need to keep digest numbers in the command, is it possible to have
the dates deleted?
2. For the same reason, it's now less convenient to retrieve a lot of
files. Again, what I needed to do previously, is to type the command line
once, then copy it to the next lines, and finally go down the text
changing one or two last digits on each line. Now I need to make changes
twice--to change both dates (this time in the middle of each line) and
3. Having "theos-l" occuring twice in the format seems to be a redundancy.
Also, I wonder if the requests are to be sent to "firstname.lastname@example.org" (as
you suggested in your email) or to "email@example.com" (as I used to do
previously)? Maybe those two addresses are interchangeable?
P.S. It looks like the format for the digest #710 is different:
theos-l.961027 (1 part, 23130 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 708
theos-l.961028 (1 part, 21603 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 709
theos-l.digest-#.961029 (1 part, 22777 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 710
theos-l.961030.digest-711 (1 part, 3655 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 711
theos-l.961031.digest-712 (1 part, 21503 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 712
theos-l.961101.digest-713 (1 part, 23559 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 713
theos-l.961102.digest-714 (1 part, 40582 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 714
theos-l.961103.digest-715 (1 part, 37265 bytes) -- THEOS-L digest 715
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application