Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!timbuk!cs.umn.edu!uc!noc.MR.NET!gacvx2.gac.edu!hhdist
From: NORM%IONAACAD.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Norman Walsh)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: RE: Why ASC over UUENCODE?
Message-ID: <5936D424400019B9@gacvx2.gac.edu>
Date: 14 Feb 91 13:28:00 GMT
Lines: 12
Return-path: <@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU:NORM@IONAACAD.BITNET>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed 13 Feb 1991 14:48 CST
To: handhelds@gac.edu

UUEncoding has a real deficiency over ASC.  It cannot be sent reliably
from point A to point B.  Specifically, if the receiver is on an IBM
mainframe the fact that uuencoded files contain square brackets is
always a problem.  IBM's EBCDIC character set doesn't have them.  It may
even be a problem if there is simply an IBM mainframe somewhere in the
path from point A to point B, but I think that is less commonly a problem.
In other circles, I always advocate XXEncoding which is a simple variation
on UUEncoding (the same algorithm 'cept it uses the letters A-Z in upper
and lower case, the digits and +/- instead of space through ASCII 95) but
here I think ASC is fine.  If memory serves, I've seen several postings
of ASC for PC's and, of course, there's always the one in my trusty '48.

                                                             ndw