Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekcrl!tekgvs!keithe
From: keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Source ARCs are inappropriate!
Message-ID: <4160@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM>
Date: 27 Oct 88 21:01:11 GMT
References: <7119@dasys1.UUCP> <4457@bsu-cs.UUCP> <7194@dasys1.UUCP> <5665@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
Reply-To: keithe@tekgvs.GVS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson)
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 25

OK, first of all, remember that Tom's original complaint/observation
had to do with SOURCE files, wherein everything fit into the 7-bit
ASCII world.

In that case it seems inefficient to do

	ascii --> arc(='binary') --> uuencode(='ascii')

followed by

	ascii --> uudecode(='binary') --> unarc(='ascii')

especially when good arguments have been put forth that USENET
transmission of ARC'd/UUENCODE'd files is not as efficient as
is the transmission of cleartext ascii.

It seems to me (look out, unsupported opinion follows) that the
efficency for the many, many USENET machines is more important than
the individual USENET host-to-PC. And besides, if you really _want_
to you can ARC it on your USENET host and _then_ download it.

keith

ps - ARC is calimed to be a trademark by SEA and I'm trying to forget
     what "S" "E" "A" stands for as fast as I can...