Via: uk.ac.leicester; Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:04:57 +0100
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.sas-l
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:04:00 BST
Reply-To:     Mail_System@LEICESTER.AC.UK
From:         Mail_System@LEICESTER.AC.UK
Subject:      %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <SAS-L@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>

Your mail was not delivered as follows:
%MAIL-E-USERSPEC, invalid user specification '@UK.AC.LEICESTER.IRIX'

Your original mail header and message follow.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY; Thu, 3 Sep 92  16:04 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <sg.25252-0@sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:04:06 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9488; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:03:01 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 1035; Thu, 03 Sep 92 11:02:18 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:34:00 BST
Reply-To: Mail_System@UK.AC.LEICESTER
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
From: Mail_System@UK.AC.LEICESTER
Subject: %% Undelivered Mail %%
Comments: To: SAS-L <SAS-L@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>

Your mail was not delivered as follows:
%MAIL-E-USERSPEC, invalid user specification '@UK.AC.LEICESTER.IRIX'

Your original mail header and message follow.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Via: UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY; Thu, 3 Sep 92  15:34 BST
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk with Internet SMTP
          id <sg.23509-0@sun3.nsfnet-relay.ac.uk>;
          Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:34:13 +0100
Received: from vtvm2.cc.vt.edu by VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP
          id 9334; Thu, 03 Sep 92 10:33:09 EDT
Received: from VTVM2.BITNET by vtvm2.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002)
          with BSMTP id 9896; Thu, 03 Sep 92 10:33:00 EDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 10:32:00 EDT
Reply-To: "Philip Gallagher,(919)966-7275" <UPHILG%BITNET.UNC@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
Original-Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
From: "Philip Gallagher,(919)966-7275" <UPHILG%BITNET.UNC@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
Subject: SAS manuals on IBM's Book Manager?
To: Multiple recipients of list SAS-L <SAS-L@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>

Dear, Decisive, Darling, and Daring Deb Cannon suggests that:

     " ...                   While I have no beef against SAS
     documentation per se, wouldn't it be great to have it all
     ONLINE?  With indexes (a Book Manager feature) , so you can search
     entire 'sets' of manuals for all existing verbage on a feature?
     IBM, I'm told, has left a door open for third-party documentation.
     Anyone heard how SAS is going to react to this?  Surely all the
     manuals are already in machine-readable format..... "

     =================================================================

     Deb has just proven that she is NOT an old poop, because
     it must certainly be true that all legitimate Old Poops
     remember how we used to joke in the Seventies that SPSS
     made its profit from the sale of manuals rather than the
     sale of software.

     Is there anyone who doubts that a major portion of SAS Institute
     revenue must come from manual sales?  (At least a major part of
     my professional expenses is attributable to manual purchases!)
     Since putting the manuals online would almost certainly mean
     markedly decreased manual sales income for SAS Inst., would that
     not be likely to result in further software price increases?

                     Great idea, Deb, I'd love to have
                     access to continuously updated SAS manuals,
                     but ...
                                Phil Gallagher, C.O.P.
                                uphilg@unc

C.O.P.  --  Certified Old Poop (on a good day, anyway)

On the other hand, maybe Jim & John would prefer to see us slogging
along with super manual access, even if it cost them profits?
That would certainly be their prerogative, I guess.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
End of returned mail

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
End of returned mail
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU