🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <3682@orca.WV.TEK.COM> stank@anvil.WV.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski) writes:
>to use "uud" instead.  Apparantly, Atari users are using something
>that performs a similar, but NOT COMPATIBLE function as the UNIX
>uuencode/uudecode.  

A number of people have pointed out that uud is upwardly compatible
with the UNIX uudecode.  I apologize for misstating the facts, it was
a poor choice of words on my part.  I should have said that they are
not "identical" in function and as such should not be considered
interchangeable.  This was the intended gist of my posting, uud and
uudecode are functionally different and yet people some people refer
to them as though they were identical.  In most cases they work the
same, but in the case of garbled files, only uud will correctly decode
them.  The point I was trying to make is that there ARE cases where
only uud will correctly decode a file and so people should be careful
about which name they use when they say "I was able to uudecode the
file".

I was not aware that machines that corrupted data were still allowed
on the "net", it seems to me that the best solution to this problem is
to get the offending machines to fix their problems under threat of
having their feeds "cut off".  Of course, I'm in no position to make
such an assertion, but it seems to me that when a machine is a node in
a network, gaining the benefits of other nodes correctly passing data,
it should not forward messages with the data altered.

								stank
US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc., Interactive Technologies Division
         PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070   Phone:(503)-685-2458
e-mail:  {ucbvax,decvax,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank
    or   stank@orca.WV.TEK.COM