[Top] [All Lists]

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

1994-12-22 03:13:19
On Wed, 21 Dec 1994 hansen(_at_)pegasus(_dot_)att(_dot_)com wrote:

The actual content type information can be easily passed as a parameter to

Maybe, but I seem to recall opposition to passing Content-Type's as
parameters in other contexts.  I can't recall the actual circumstances off
the top of my head. 

send me mail with an attachment encoded with uuencode, my MIME mailers won't
be able to automatically handle it! I have to go back outside of MIME to do
something with the attachment. Instead of making life easier, you've
actually made it more difficult.

Don't blame me!  I'm just following the crowd!  Because CTE: x-uuencode
has wide support, I will also support it.  I don't have to like it.  When
you can convince everyone else to change their ways, I'll be the first in
line to support whatever new thing you come up with.  This is purely a
practical consideration.

Personally, I'd like to see uuencode dropped down the nearest deep hole
never to resurface, but one has to put up with a little ugliness sometimes
to keep those dang users happy.  For better or worse, the CTE solution was
chosen by some implementors and has become entrenched.  I'm not trying to
defend their decision, merely living with it. 


Rhys Weatherley, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
E-mail: rhys(_at_)fit(_dot_)qut(_dot_)edu(_dot_)au  "net.maturity is knowing 
when NOT to followup"