Beyond shar (Re: shars and security concerns.)

[Jan Dj{rv]

In article <18275 at rpp386.cactus.org> jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>
>The problem some people are pointing out with the new shars is
>that they are overly complex and make unarchiving on non-UNIX
>machines more difficult than they need be.

I think the new complex shar's are fine. Let me explain why. At my work we
have some different UNIX machines, but we are not connected to the outside
world except on a rented telephone line (4800 baud). So I'm reading news
and ftp'ing on other machines. When I want to take home some source or
binary these shar's are a wonderful tool, they compress uudecode and split
the input so I can mail it home. I can't do that with a simple shar.

>
>I am certain Warren Tucker and the other busybodies are well
>intended in their efforts, however, sometimes less is more.  And
>this just happens to be one of those times, in my humble opinion.

If a standard for sharchives where to emerge, why not put in a '-standard'
option to the complex shar's? Let the moderators reject source wrapped
in a nonstandard way. Then everybody would be happy (no?).

But don't say these new shar's are a bad thing. Some of us needs them.

	Jan D.