Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!jarthur!bridge2!3comvax!tymix!cirrusl!sunstorm!dhesi From: dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Automated extraction of programs from c.b.i.p postings. Message-ID: <2077@cirrusl.UUCP> Date: 26 Jul 90 20:03:07 GMT References: <5213@castle.ed.ac.uk> <3994@trantor.harris-atd.com> <623@enint.Wichita.NCR.COM> <1990Jul22.200236.26809@looking.on.ca> Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc. Lines: 31 In <1990Jul22.200236.26809@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >But the moderator had decided not to use ABE, I was never told why. Abe was posted to comp.binaries.ibm.pc and comp.sources.misc around mid-1989 while I was still moderator. At that time my comments that accompanied the binary posting (paraphrased) were that Abe could be very useful, but whether it was used for Usenet binary postings would depend on user feedback. There was absolutely no user feedback; probably most users decided not to worry about it since it wasn't being widely used (the old chicken-and-egg problem.) In its fully uuencode-compatible mode, abe has only a slight advantage. In its uuencode-incompatible mode, abe has distinct advantages, but it wasn't immediately clear to me at that time if those advantages outweighed the possible problems caused by having to retrain users. The *main* advantage of abe was independence from ordering of parts. Another advantage, human-readability of text, probably isn't a real advantage, since it's very unlikely that binary postings will appear in any other than compressed-archived format. I think some moderator of some binaries newsgroup (Bill?) should give abe a try. In the long run, if users can be easily retrained, abe will be an improvement. I think it would be a great idea if those who have tried abe were to post their opinions about it versus uuencoding. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi