[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Pan-users] Please test my updated github master branch - "patches_f
Re: [Pan-users] Please test my updated github master branch - "patches_for_imhotep82_master_GIT-ef96111.diff" - yEnc (1/1)
Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:36:54 +0200
On Wed 13 Jul 2011 at 05:01:22 +0000, SciFi wrote:
> file.part01.rar (01/10) (first article-sized slice)
> file.part01.rar (02/10) (2nd slice, needs to Reference the ID for 01/10)
> file.part01.rar (03/10) (3rd slice, needs to Reference the ID for 02/10 *and*
> 01/10??? i think it only needs to reference 02/10 only)
I think the RFCs (which ones? haven't looked them up in a while) specify
you should include references for several levels of parents, up to some
"reasonable" limit. For whatever value of "reasonable". A reason given
for having multiple parents is that if some poster leaves out
reference information, the tree can be constructed properly anyway.
Although I haven't quickly been able to think up a reasonable scenario
along those lines.
For this case of binaries in rar files, what I've seen sometimes is
+- file.part02.rar (01/10)
+- file.part03.rar (01/10)
i.e. related binary files are also tied together, as if they are replies
to the first one. Sometimes just the par files going with multiple rar
files are linked like that.
It would make sense (to me anyway) to structure the slices of a single
file similarly (but I haven't looked extensively at what happens in the
wild). A single example I've looked at doesn't have References: headers
at all in the slices.
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- There's no point being grown-up if you
\X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- can't be childish sometimes. -The 4th Doctor