uencoding

PEPERA at BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM PEPERA at BEAST.CS.HH.AB.COM
Wed Aug 31 07:49:23 EST 1994


From:	SMTP%"BIOSCI-REQUEST at net.bio.net" 31-AUG-1994 08:23:11.64
To:	PEPERA
CC:	
Subj:	uencoding

To: mycology at net.bio.net
From: buxton at fmi.ch (Buxton Frank)
Subject: uencoding
Date: 31 Aug 1994 12:41:56 +0100
Sender: lpddist at mserv1.dl.ac.uk
Message-ID: <341qa4$gif at mserv1.dl.ac.uk>
Original-To: mycology at dl.ac.uk


	I guess I am just ignorant, primitive or something but I can
	not read uencoded messages. Now I know that I can probably find
	the software to do this, probably free from some server or other
	on Ethernet but maybe I happen to have better ways of spending my
	time. Can anyone tell me what are the overiding advantages of 
	sending messages to the bulletin board in this form? NOTE the
	advantages would have to be quite dramatic as they have to offset
	the cost of all the recipients finding the software installing it and 
	getting used to using it!

	If the advantage are really not that great why don't we just go
	back to the good old fashioned method of sending straight text
	files as these can be read easily by anyone, after all I thought
	the object was to convey useful information not to show how
	clever we are at playing with our computers. 

	Frank Buxton
	buxton at fmi.ch		
	Tel: (Switzerland) 61 696 16 61
	FAX: (Switzerland) 61 696 93 01	
	K681-307, Ciba AG, CH4002, Basel, Switzerland
-----------------------


	Frank,

		The advantage of sending uuencoded files is that it allows the
capability to send binary characters via EMAIL. So, if there are no binary
characters in your message then, there is no advantage. A wordperfect document
, for example, could not be sent unless it were first uuencoded. The sender
would have to convert it to ascii before sending it in order to avoid uuencoding
it. Of course, it wouldn't look as nice but, for most messages who cares ? 


Regards,

Jerry Pepera
pepera at cs.hh.ab.com



More information about the Mycology mailing list