Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!columbia!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!parcvax!burton
From: burton@parcvax.Xerox.COM (Philip M. Burton)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Why UUEncoding?
Message-ID: <439@parcvax.Xerox.COM>
Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 13:31:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: parcvax.439
Posted: Wed Aug 19 13:31:05 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 09:56:15 EDT
References: <21664@lll-tis.arpa> <164300018@uiucdcsb>
Reply-To: burton@parcvax.xerox.com.UUCP (Philip M. Burton)
Organization: Xerox PARC
Lines: 32

In article <164300018@uiucdcsb> irwin@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>/* Written 11:48 am  Aug 17, 1987 by sierra@lll-tis.arpa in uiucdcsb:comp.sys.ibm.pc */
>>  2. UUENCODE provides control and checksum:
>>     When files are transmitted through probably noisy lines,
>>     there are chances to lost information on the process.  Some
>>     check characters and file integrity checksums provides the
>>     mechanisms to determine, most of the time, if the file was
>>     received correctly.
>
>>Besides this two reasons, are there any other good reasons for
>>sending UUEncoded files?  One problem with UUENCODE is that the
>>file size is increased by approximatyely 35% (increasing the
>>cost in transmisssion).

The supposed checksum benefit of uuencode'd files is lost if a single file is
split up into several mailnotes.  My earlier request was that
people create several uuencoded'd files, if necessary, to transmit the
entire contents of an ARC file.

I have found that reconstituting a split up uuencoded'd file often doesn't work.







-- 
Philip Burton
Xerox Corporation    408 737 4635
 ... usual disclaimers apply ...