Re: X.400 and multimedia mail

Article View: comp.mail.mime

Article #17

#17

From: Roy Smith
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:09

9 lines
1001 bytes

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> And uuencode is essentially identical to base64 except that it's not as
> good, due to some fundamental design mistakes; in particular, it isn't any
> more compact.

	What ever happened to btoa?  It came out a bunch of years ago, but
never seemed to catch on.  As I remember, it was touted as a replacement for
uuencode with the advantage that it only incurred a 5/4ths expansion instead
of 4/3rds.  Was there some reason why MIME didn't use btoa?

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1gfg5uINN5ej@calvin.NYU.EDU>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!cmcl2!calvin!mchip00.med.nyu.edu!roy

References: <1992Dec11.153138.2198@ericsson.se> <1galsqINNr88@gap.caltech.edu> <Bz6H65.EnH@zoo.toronto.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!cmcl2!calvin!mchip00.med.nyu.edu!roy
From: roy@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mime
Subject: Re: X.400 and multimedia mail
Date: 13 Dec 1992 14:09:02 GMT
Organization: New York University, School of Medicine
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <1gfg5uINN5ej@calvin.NYU.EDU>
References: <1992Dec11.153138.2198@ericsson.se> <1galsqINNr88@gap.caltech.edu> <Bz6H65.EnH@zoo.toronto.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mchip00.med.nyu.edu

Reply to Parent Message