Article View: comp.mail.misc
Article #3875Re: (not an) RFC: mailbox format
From: John Stanley
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:39
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:39
16 lines
1215 bytes
1215 bytes
In article <MS-C.727914241.1103527590.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (Mark Crispin) writes: >The MIME archives are filled with discussions on how binary data is >represented in mail. It seems that AT&T/SUN have paid no attention to >this at all. Since you bring it up . . . Is there any good reason why MIME chose to go with its own version of binary encoding instead of using UUENCODE? While there are some systems that can't pass UUENCODEd data (converting one ASCII character to something else, as I recall), UUENCODE IS almost universally available, while MIME is not. It is rather counterproductive to require a user to know that the recipient's mailer is MIME compatible before sending a binary.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1k0u3kINNq3v@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!fmsrl7!lynx.unm.edu!umn.edu!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!ruby!stanleyReferences:
<MS-C.727914241.1103527590.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!fmsrl7!lynx.unm.edu!umn.edu!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!ruby!stanley From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc Subject: Re: (not an) RFC: mailbox format Date: 25 Jan 1993 14:39:48 GMT Organization: Coastal Imaging Lab, College of Oceanography Lines: 17 Message-ID: <1k0u3kINNq3v@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> References: <MS-C.727914241.1103527590.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: ruby.oce.orst.edu