[no subject]

Tero is right, of course, about .shk files.  I never intended to strip those
suffixes off, but my post didn't look that way.  I still don't want to use
suffixes for binscii files in most cases.  Sometimes it will be called for,
and I'd suggest using .bsc (binscii), .bsk (binscii/shrinkit), or .bsd
(binscii/shrinkit disk archive).  I'm so _old_ that .bsq will always mean
'binary squeezed' - ie. a 'squeezed file with a Binary II header'.  I believe
squeeze and unsqueeze utilities were by Don Elton, but I may be dis-remembering
.  My apologies to the real author.  (I will look it up after I quit PT3.1 :-))

I do need advice on how to handle binscii files posted in segments.  I've
archived the file segments as they are posted to cba2, usually creating a
directory and putting the .partmofn segments in the directory.  This annoys
me and some others :-)  But I felt that e-mail size segments were important
for some people.  1)  I wouldn't have to resegment to e-mail out files.
2)  The files were small enough people without file transfer programs could
capture the files in the small segments.

Crudely put, it has been suggested to me that people in case 1 should get a
real network connection if they want access to the archive, and people in case
2 should get a real file transfer terminal program (and a net connection) if
they want access to the archive.  Drastic, but I agree.  That would reduce
the number of directories drastically.  Segments from cba2 would be 'cat'-ed
together and saved as one binscii/* file.  sciibin would extract the binary
*.shk files.  Files would be doubly archived: 1)binscii-text 2)shrinkit-binary
No e-mail requests for files would be honored.  People would need at least a
program like Kermit-65, or one of the commercial programs, to be able to
call in and dnload a file.  Most would need telnet or FTP access to fetch
files to there own host machine prior to dnloading.

Are there any objections?  (probably not, as the only ones reading this
have network connections - kind of like 'Will those who are absent please
raise their hand')

Discussion, please? 

(of course, only the 40 people who contributed will have their comments
considered)  Just kidding :-)

  --Steven Nelson               steven-nelson@uiowa.edu