lucan <earl@missing.invalid> wrote in
news:0001HW.D10564C7001D323CB01029BF@news.giganews.com:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:30:12 -0500, lucan wrote
> (in article <0001HW.D10544B40015ADB7B01029BF@news.giganews.com>):
>
>> (in article <XnsA4416298DECA0roakerblackcompany@216.166.97.131>):
>>
>>> Two scans attached: "hs-cindy101" and "hs-cindy101+duplicated file
>>> name+".
>>>
>>> The csv I have has the first, it does not have the second under any
>>> file name. I suppose it could be handled similarly to how the extra
>>> "greta" files were handled - include it with the amended name
>>> "hs-cindy1011".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The Cindy Stewart pic was posted this way:
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> From: zelig@who.com ( Zelig )
>> Subject: Humbert Archive ___ Vintage Fling ( see note ) -
>> hs-cindy101.jpg(1/1) 186844 bytes
>> Organization: ?
>> Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pinups
>> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:57:48 -0500
>>
>>
>> These were done as a set. It appears I have moved a few
>> around to individual folders by model names.
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Index posted by Humbert at that time attached.
>>
>> lucan
>>
>
> I see now that "hs-cindy101.jpg" appears twice in the csv. The second
> one (186844 bytes) is sort of hiding in amongst the indices near the
> end:
>
> hs-cindy101.jpg,186844,eebfdf95,\Humbert Indecies\,Unknown
>
> lucan
>
I dumped the csv into Excel and after several re-sorts and searches I did
find the extra Cindy file in an index sub-directory.
|
|
![Favorite](javascript:myfavor('http://www.nzbot.com/article/alt.binaries.pinups/711', 'Re: <lucan> Humbert scans 2 - 2 attachments - "!!!!!index file001.jpg" yEnc (1/1) [113920 bytes]')){kind=link}