Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!hudson.acc.Virginia.EDU!dmm0t
From: dmm0t@hudson.acc.Virginia.EDU (David M. Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: uuencode vs. xxencode
Message-ID: <1990Jul17.160257.24567@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 17 Jul 90 16:02:57 GMT
References: <9007171240.AA00322@thep.lu.se>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 22

In article <9007171240.AA00322@thep.lu.se> magnus@THEP.LU.SE (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>What's the difference between uuencode and xxencode, and which encoding
>scheme is the "best" for mailing binaries (i.e. which one produces the smallest
>output files?)

As I understand it, both uuencode and xxencode do basically the same
thing:  convert 2 8-bit bytes (i.e. binary data) into 3 6-bit bytes
(i.e. text).  Therefore, they create the same size output files.  
I've been told that (somehow) xxencode is superior, but since uuencode
is much more universally available, uuencode is the method of choice.

For a more complete, technical explanation of the difference between
the two, look in the documentation of Richard Marx' excellent
PC version of uuencode and uudecode, UUEXE402.ZIP (available on
simtel20 and wuarchive).


--
David M. Meyer                                       dmm0t@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926