Uuencode implementations also differ widely in their (in)ability to work
in a pipe, which can be a problem if you want to write an implementation
that simply pipes a body through uudecode. That's another way in which
uuencode/uudecode are "non-standard".
Ok.. that's a little problem. It's just as easy to embed uu{en,de}code
in a program as it is to embed Base64. In fact it might be the same
actual code, but different encoding tables. At any rate the user
agent we're developing includes uu{en,de}code embedded in the program.
It was no trouble to do since it just slid right in. (Hadda do this
since the UA is also portable to PCs and Macs)....
...Hmm.. I haven't noticed. Am I the only person supporting uuencode?
If so I'll shut up now...
No, uuencode is the right solution for this simple reason that it is
very commonly available on almost everything, DOS, OS/2, Macs, various
UNIXs, even VMS/VAXen. Currently, I can send a uuencoded message to anyone
and be confident of their ability to decode it -- choosing uuencode as
the basis for an automated encoding facility ensures that even those
with 'old-style' MTA/UAs will be able to understand the message.
enjoy,
leo j mclaughlin iii
ljm(_at_)ftp(_dot_)com