from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFF9440C9
	for <jm@localhost>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:14:46 -0400 (EDT)
from dogma.slashnull.org [212.17.35.15]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:14:46 +0100 (IST)
from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6JGEGJ13178 for
    <jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:14:16 +0100
from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA14596; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:10:48 +0100
from smtp015.mail.yahoo.com (smtp015.mail.yahoo.com
    [216.136.173.59]) by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA14558
    for <ilug@linux.ie>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 17:10:41 +0100
from unknown (HELO mfrenchw2k) (mfrench42@62.254.163.42 with
    login) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jul 2002 16:10:38
    -0000
From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Fri Jul 19 17:14:50 2002

>  however, the data will be read and written twice by the
>  1st (source) `tar', and read twice by the 2nd (sink) `tar',
>  albeit only written once as the sink realizes the second
Eh?!? Oh wait... <pause while original mail is re-read>
Doh. Sorry, I automatically read 'soft' in front of 'links', despite all
evidence to the contrary. I thought the original question was a bit
On that note: is there any real benefit to using hard links? I avoid them as
a rule, and cannot think of any good reason to use them at the moment.

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by spamassassin.taint.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EF716F17
	for <zzzz@localhost>; Tue,  8 Oct 2002 10:55:43 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for zzzz@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:55:43 +0100 (IST)
from dogma.slashnull.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g98814K06118 for
    <zzzz@spamassassin.taint.org>; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:01:04 +0100