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.
I'm coming in a little out of context and hope I'm not going over old
ground but, given Leo's comment...
This is just a question, but do IBM mainframes of the VM/CMS and MVS
persuasions go on that "almost everything" list? I vaguely recall
being told that several versions and styles of uuencode won't survive
translation to ebcidic.
Note that I'm asking this question about these machines insofar as some
of them are connected, reasonably conforming, Internet hosts. The role
of some of them on other networks, or as gateways to those networks, is
not [very] relevant to this discussion and we have never required that
an Internet host must run ASCII internally.
If they cannot properly handle uuencode internally, that doesn't
necessarily bar using it, since a sufficiently smart "new" MTA/UA pair
should be able to do the decoding. But it would certainly be a blow to
the universality of 'old' MTA/UAs being able to handle the stuff.
--john
-------