David Herron writes:
Am I the only person supporting uuencode?
Nope. I would also like to support uuencode. As you say, it is very
widely known, implemented, and installed. It is very easy for a
receiver to apply uudecode even if he/she doesn't have a new
super-duper UA.
As far as pipable uuencoders are concerned, I would suggest that we
specify in the RFC that only non-pipable uuencode format may be used.
(And maybe add some other details about end-of-line spaces, etc.) This
way, implementors of new UAs will be forced to use a portable type of
uuencode, and receivers with old UAs will be able to use their
ordinary uuencode program by hand.
However, if there is a consensus that the new RFC should attempt to
force users to get new UAs, maybe we should not include uuencode.
Erik