Re: UUencode

I mention this because your stance on uuencode smacks of this
sort of social engineering.


        Just occurred to me that this might be read to sound as
        if it were a flame.  It is not..

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: compressed as Content-Encoding, rather than Content-Type, (continued) Re: compressed as Content-Encoding, rather than Content-Type, Bill Janssen Re: compressed as Content-Encoding, rather than Content-Type, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Bill Janssen Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Vincent Lau Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Einar Stefferud Re: Comments on Draft RFC, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: Comments on Draft RFC, David Herron Re: UUencode, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: UUencode, David Herron Re: UUencode, David Herron <= Re: UUencode, Nathaniel Borenstein multiple Content-Encoding:'s, David Herron Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Greg Vaudreuil Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Einar Stefferud Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, David Herron Re: multiple Content-Encoding:'s, Nathaniel Borenstein

Previous by Date:	Re: Some comments to new draft, Ned Freed, Postmaster
Next by Date:	Re: support for all content types, Erik M. van der Poel
Previous by Thread:	Re: UUencode, David Herron
Next by Thread:	Re: UUencode, Nathaniel Borenstein
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]