🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <809@aucs.UUCP> paul@aucs.UUCP (Paul Steele) writes:
>In article <799@aucs.UUCP> paul@aucs.UUCP (Paul Steele) writes:
>>Has anyone had any experience with the new graphics program "Draw it Again,

>sure enough, I did find that there was such a demo.  Well, almost. As
>usual for multipart postings, parts 3, 5, and 8 (of 9) never arrived
>
>This situation is getting pretty annoying since it happens so often.  For

>know who or what is causing this problem, but it seems to me that its
>costing some sites on the net money for something they shouldn't have to.
>Sort of like paying for damaged goods.  I wonder how many single postings

>Perhaps I'm complaining about something that no one has any control of,
>but it seems to me something should be done.

I'm sure this isn't the right newsgroup to address this issue, but I'm not
sure which one IS appropriate.  Perhaps news.lists or news.misc?  Anyway:

My particular news feed *seems* to be relatively reliable compared to some of
the comments I see posted.  However it still manages to miss (and mung, on
reasonably rare occasions) postings once in a while.  Perhaps there needs to
be some survey of net connectivity similar to the net traffic statistics that
seismo (still?) generates on news.lists.  I would assume that the basic
netnews software (I don't know how it works from an administrative
standpoint) should be able to be modified so that "audit trails" could be
generated to actually check out the reliability of at least portions of the
net.

Don't get me wrong.  I think that network mailers (eg. uucp, ...) are very
capable.  But couldn't the surrounding software be a little bit more robust
about keeping track of what's going on in the net?
-- 
Rich Straka     ihnp4!ihlpf!straka

Advice for the day: "MSDOS - just say no."