[Top] [All Lists]

Re[2]: Will the real uuencode please stand up?

1994-12-19 10:32:31
     We also use x-uuencode in Internet Exchange (our gateway to cc:Mail).
     It has been my impression that many MIME vendors have had to add 
     support for this capability due to the very strong demand of their 
     customers.  This is certainly the case for us - in spite of the fact 
     that we strongly discourage the use of UUENCODE for any file types, we 
     have found that a large portion of our user base depends upon this and 
     actually prefers it over the "official" alternatives.
     At the risk of bringing up an old argument, based upon what we now 
     know of the real world demand for this type of compatibility, does it 
     make sense to re-address some of these issues?  Perhaps it might make 
     sense to optionally support UUENCODE within MIME, and then all of us 
     that have to support this, can at least come to agreement on a common 
     way to label things.
     Best Regards,
     Tim Kehres
     International Messaging Associates Ltd

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Will the real uuencode please stand up?
Author:  Steve Dorner <sdorner(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> at Internet
Date:    12/19/94 8:44 AM

At 8:50 PM 12/18/94, Mr Rhys Weatherley wrote:
So, what is the collective wisdom on the *cough* "correct" CTE value 
to use when sending a MIME message containing uuencoded data?
I use "x-uuencode".  I won't argue that it's correct, but it's what I use.
I will not use multipart/alternative for uuencode; to my mind the whole 
point of using uuencode is compatibility with non-MIME mailers, and 
multipart/alternative blows that pretty completely.
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Incorporated.  "Oog make mission statement."