Can Stuffit 7 handle <filename.partNN.rar> files ?

[kjhjk]

hello

Can Stuffit 7 handle <filename.partNN.rar> files ?


RAR 3 new formar

--
Hotmail filter : put "AAA" in subject

[Paul Mitchum]

kjhjk <kjhjk@hotmail.com> wrote:

> hello
>
> Can Stuffit 7 handle <filename.partNN.rar> files ?
>
>
> RAR 3 new formar

Dunno about Stuffit, but there are a few utilities for dealing with
rar/par files. Check here: <http://www.chaosmint.com/usenet/>

[Auric__]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:21:08 +0200, kjhjk <kjhjk@hotmail.com> wrote:

>hello
>
>Can Stuffit 7 handle <filename.partNN.rar> files ?
>
>
>RAR 3 new formar

PC version (Stuffit version 8, engine version 7) can't handle
multipart RARs, so it would seem logical that the Mac version
_probably_ can't either.
--
auric "underscore" "underscore" "at" hotmail "dot" com

[Auric__]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:07:28 -0700, [email]usenet@mile23.com[/email] (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

>kjhjk <kjhjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>> hello
>>
>> Can Stuffit 7 handle <filename.partNN.rar> files ?
>>
>>
>> RAR 3 new formar

>
>Dunno about Stuffit, but there are a few utilities for dealing with
>rar/par files. Check here: <http://www.chaosmint.com/usenet/>

RAR and PAR are completely unrelated - RAR is a compression format,
while PAR is a parity format.
--
auric "underscore" "underscore" "at" hotmail "dot" com

[Paul Mitchum]

Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:07:28 -0700, [email]usenet@mile23.com[/email] (Paul Mitchum)
> wrote:
>

> >kjhjk <kjhjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >

> >> hello
> >>
> >> Can Stuffit 7 handle <filename.partNN.rar> files ?
> >>
> >>
> >> RAR 3 new formar

> >
> >Dunno about Stuffit, but there are a few utilities for dealing with
> >rar/par files. Check here: <http://www.chaosmint.com/usenet/>

>
> RAR and PAR are completely unrelated - RAR is a compression format, while
> PAR is a parity format.

They're often used in tandem to post large binaries to usenet. The files
are compressed with rar, and then par-encoded files are posted to usenet
in case some messages don't make it through.

[Auric__]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 15:43:45 -0700, [email]usenet@mile23.com[/email] (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

>Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
>

>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:07:28 -0700, [email]usenet@mile23.com[/email] (Paul Mitchum)
>> wrote:
>>

>> >kjhjk <kjhjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> hello
>> >>
>> >> Can Stuffit 7 handle <filename.partNN.rar> files ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> RAR 3 new formar
>> >
>> >Dunno about Stuffit, but there are a few utilities for dealing with
>> >rar/par files. Check here: <http://www.chaosmint.com/usenet/>

>>
>> RAR and PAR are completely unrelated - RAR is a compression format, while
>> PAR is a parity format.

>
>They're often used in tandem to post large binaries to usenet. The files
>are compressed with rar, and then par-encoded files are posted to usenet
>in case some messages don't make it through.

I'm aware of that, but your post made it sound like you thought they
were related somehow.
--
auric "underscore" "underscore" "at" hotmail "dot" com

[Michael Ash]

In article <fgpalvo4grkh86f9edj2nfar8r62i1v3tm@4ax.com>,
Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:

> I'm aware of that, but your post made it sound like you thought they
> were related somehow.

If people use them together then they are related.

Do you make similar complaints if people talk about tar/gz files or
sit/hqx files?

[Auric__]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 00:11:17 -0400, Michael Ash <mail@mikeash.com>
wrote:

>In article <fgpalvo4grkh86f9edj2nfar8r62i1v3tm@4ax.com>,
> Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
>

>> I'm aware of that, but your post made it sound like you thought they
>> were related somehow.

>
>If people use them together then they are related.
>
>Do you make similar complaints if people talk about tar/gz files or
>sit/hqx files?

No, I don't normally complain, I just try to clarify.

The formats you listed are no more or less related than PAR and RAR
files - in each case, the two formats listed do separate, unrelated
functions - tar combines multiple files into a single continuous
stream while gzip compresses files, and StuffIt compresses files while
Binhex encodes them into a 6- or 7-bit format (can't remember, not
going to look it up, unimportant). However, none of these formats is
tied to the others - PAR files can be used for any file (to my
knowledge), tar files can be compressed with any format, sit files can
be uuencoded, etc.

However, regardless of the fact that I'm being extremely anal about
all of this, I'm going to stop posting - I realized that I'm turning
into a troll; not exactly a good thing. If I annoyed or offended, I
apologize.
--
auric "underscore" "underscore" "at" hotmail "dot" com

[Michael Ash]

In article <fu1blv8d7jfbhrfjr3tv1sl9b31h7fbj4q@4ax.com>,
Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:

> No, I don't normally complain, I just try to clarify.

You may try to clarify, but I'm not convinced it actually makes things
clearer....

> The formats you listed are no more or less related than PAR and RAR
> files - in each case, the two formats listed do separate, unrelated
> functions - tar combines multiple files into a single continuous
> stream while gzip compresses files, and StuffIt compresses files while
> Binhex encodes them into a 6- or 7-bit format (can't remember, not
> going to look it up, unimportant). However, none of these formats is
> tied to the others - PAR files can be used for any file (to my
> knowledge), tar files can be compressed with any format, sit files can
> be uuencoded, etc.

Of course, of course. But we simply have different definitions of
"related". To me, two formats are related if people commonly use them
together and thus associate them. In other words, they're related
because people think they're related. I can't recall the last time I saw
a file that used hqx without using sit, or a file that used gz without
first using tar.

> However, regardless of the fact that I'm being extremely anal about
> all of this, I'm going to stop posting - I realized that I'm turning
> into a troll; not exactly a good thing. If I annoyed or offended, I
> apologize.

No problem, a pointless pedantic argument is a good thing to have every
so often. :) They're very rare in this group, compared to some other
ones I frequent.