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."