Today I received messages from 2 subscribers that postings from a
particular poster has caused their Eudora systems to crash. Both
identified the same subscriber as the one whose messages were the source
of the problem. The first report came from a subscriber who receives a
digest where the problem was an 11 June posting; the second came from a
subscriber who receives individual mail messages; a posting today was
his system's downfall.
I retrieved both messages from the list's archives (they are the only
ones this poster has sent this month). They look OK to me: no visible
extraneous characters, no attachments. (They are appended below).
Anyone have any suggestions as to what might be wrong?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Judith Hopkins, Listowner of Autocat
[log in to unmask]
My home page: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~ulcjh
AUTOCAT home page:
http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/autocat/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 14:43:15 -0400
From: "L-Soft list server at University at Buffalo (1.8c)"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: Judith Hopkins <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: File: "AUTOCAT POSTINGS"
>>> Posting number 12887, dated 11 Jun 1998 12:41:25
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:41:25 EST5EDT4,M4.1.0,M10.5.0
Reply-To: "AUTOCAT: Library cataloging and authorities discussion group"
<[log in to unmask]>,
"Smith, Margaret" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: "AUTOCAT: Library cataloging and authorities discussion group"
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Smith, Margaret" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: barcodes
Mike,
Our experience with barcodes is a little different from your thoughts. We
chose to use the dual label, where the second part is the number only. This
piece we affix to the reverse of the shelf list card. We find that knowing
what number is assigned to which copy is enormously useful in on-going database
maintenance. They have also been useful in general cleanup after automation.
We have long ago discarded our card catalog, but we do retain the shelflist for
a number of reasons, so using the barcode numbers is easy for us.
We chose to put the barcodes inside the front cover to protect them. When we
do inventory (a collection of 90+ K) it does mean the student aide must open
the book, and listen for the beep, but this does not appreciably slow the
process down, since we use a scanner and have an inventory program as part of
our system.
A manual inventory used to take the whole staff most of the summer. The
automated inventory requres two student aides for less than two months.
Tobe Smith
Assistant Director
Leroy V. Good Library
Monroe Community College
Rochester, NY 14623
[log in to unmask]
>>> Posting number 12974, dated 16 Jun 1998 08:28:32
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 08:28:32 EST5EDT4,M4.1.0,M10.5.0
Reply-To: "AUTOCAT: Library cataloging and authorities discussion group"
<[log in to unmask]>,
"Smith, Margaret" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: "AUTOCAT: Library cataloging and authorities discussion group"
<[log in to unmask]>
From: "Smith, Margaret" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Automation pitfalls
Rich,
In the best of all possible worlds, the barcodes would be right, the training
all-inclusive, and the software without bugs.
However... I think you should count on spending at least a year cleaning up
problems, with any or all of the above. My suggestion would be that you
preserve your shelflist and check it against a printout, section by section, of
your OPAC. In that way you'll know that the OPAC truly represents the
collection. It's amazing the things you'll find!
I wish you all sorts of good luck with your automation! It's such an exciting
process and definitely rewarding.
Tobie Smith
Leroy V. Good Library
Monroe Community College
Rochester, New York 14623
[log in to unmask]
|
