🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi, first my greatest praise for what you are doing.

I have been collecting info on snarfable codes for several years
and have big pile of mail messages and notes indicating archive sites.
Many of them I have verified and in some cases, regularly use.
I assume most of the big archives (like uunet) that have newgroups
associated with them will send you their own site entries.

However, many of the smaller arch sites, particularly those
part of a univ research group will never get around to making
a proper ca posting. Would you care for either (1) raw postings
of original mail messages announcing a snarfable source; (2)
ca-format entries for such? (2) stuff would come at a *much*
slower rate, of course.

If you can make contributing to the data base (and making
research result software snarfable) a standard part
of the academic publishing process for cs research work, you
will have done much towards cutting out the bullsh*t out of
usa cs research.

Andy