Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:2000 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:55
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!teddy!jpn
From: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Standard for file transmission
Message-ID: <4744@teddy.UUCP>
Date: 3 May 88 14:53:02 GMT
References: <292@cullsj.UUCP> <696@fig.bbn.com>
Reply-To: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 34

>If you are (sigh) going to post binaries on Usenet, DO NOT compress
>them first.  Many Usenet sites use compress to pack up their news
>batches.  Compressing a compressed file makes it larger.

This is incorrect.

I hope I can clear this up once and for all:

If you have ascii files (like source or documentation), then it is true
that compressing, then uuencoding is a BAD IDEA, even though the posting
appears to be smaller than the cleartext.  That is because when the file is
compressed again, it will be larger than the cleartext after IT is
compressed.

If you have a binary file that MUST be uuencoded to be posted, then
compression before uuencoding IS HELPFUL!  Most files that are
compressed, then uuencoded, then compressed again are signficantly
smaller than files that are simply uuencoded, then compressed once!  I
think that the reason this is true is that uuencoding tends to
interfere with the compression process.  By the way, compressing a
uuencoded file almost always results in a small reduction in size.

When I say "compressed", I include archival programs such as ARC and ZOO.

These conclusions were reached by experimental evidence (I didn't conduct
the experiments, others did, and they posted their results).  Perhaps
no one bothered to read these informative articles, (or else my suspicion
is true:  the maximum long-term memory of the average USENET reader is
no more than 1 month long).

-- 
     john nelson

UUCP:            {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn
ARPA (sort of):  talcott.harvard.edu!panda!teddy!jpn