On Tuesday, September 16, 1997 1:09 AM, Why is it always 'thin air'? Why
can't it be 'fat air'? 'Mostly fit but could lose a few pounds air'?
> [SMTP:KOCHTE@stsci.edu] wrote:
<snip>
> >> --0-899180149-874210068=:7228
The attachment was in ASCII text it said so in the header above. There is a
BIG difference between ASCII attachments and BINARIES. BINARIES are banned
from this list - posting ASCII
is OK? though its good manners to put (long) in the subject header if it is
several Kb. Its just some mailers add a supplementary ASCII document as a MIME
attachment, others even send the mail message in MIME format. Often its just
too much hassle to embedd the document in the message (in MS its easy to drag
and drop a file into a message but you get it as a MIME attachment). Often
people do this without thinking about it.
I think the vast majority of modern mailers support MIME and its it such
common usage as to be part of the email furniture now. Those without it (like
on VMS mail :-) have my condolences but please don't prevent those of us
with modern mail systems from using it if the necessity arrives. It you don't
want to read it on some strange MIMEophobic or security principle thats fine.
If you can't, there are solutions for the MIME challenged, you can get MIME
unpackers even for VMS on the web (munpack).
sincerely
> Additionally not everyone can read attachments. I can't. I know
Hmmmm. I guess I get an education here; it looked to me like an encoded binary
attachment. Nevertheless, I couldn't decode/read it.
> though its good manners to put (long) in the subject header if it is
Often its
> just too much hassle to embedd the document in the message (in MS its
Don't know nuthin' 'bout MS; don't do PCs right now. Strictly a mainframe type
of guy.
> I think the vast majority of modern mailers support MIME and its it
Guilty!
> have my condolences but please don't prevent those of us with
This something a simple user can get and install, or does he need system
privileges to do so? If the latter I have no option since this is through my
work acct.
Mk
In message <01BCC27E.0830B950@Tim.Jones@smallworld.co.uk>
> Tim Jones <Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk> wrote:
> The attachment was in ASCII text it said so in the header above.
Actually it wasn't, well, okay it was, in the sense that the result of base64
encoding is ASCII, but it wasn't readable ASCII. If it really was a plain
ASCII file originally, then for some reason it had been encoded.
But anyway, it was more the size rather than the encoding I was mildly
objecting to.
> I think the vast majority of modern mailers support MIME and its it
Everything I've ever used supports uuencode. I've never come across a base64
decoder which works hassle free (on either UNIX or RISC OS).
But anyway,
People generally don't like binaries because they tend to be big. I'd rather
receive a 5K binary than a 500K plain text file.
The internet is a multi-platform environment, and it helps
to (gently and politely) remind (typically PC) users of this now and again
(and it's better for them as well, since more people will be able to read
their ideas).
The odd few unreadable/difficult to read/large files I
have no objection to. The problem is when people start
posting such items as a matter of course, because no-one
objected when they did it the first time.
I'd just like people to think a bit before posting large files (binary or
otherwise), about whether it really needs to be posted, or is something that
could be put on
an ftp/web site, and a pointer posted instead.
Having said that, I'll now shut up on the subject. Thankyou for your
consideration.
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Samuel Penn wrote:
> Everything I've ever used supports uuencode. I've never come
Here's a hint: PINE. Examine my headers. Yes, I'm coming from a UNIX
box; I'm /surrounded/ in UNIX boxen, its DEC's UNIX Tech Support Center.
Elm, for those who don't like Pine, is also fully MIME compliant and has been
forever. Both run without a hitch on my DECstation 5000 running ULTRIX as home
as well as the Alphas here at work.
So much for claims sans support.
ObDSII: Is there really enough interest in SGII for me to include stats for
CENTURION infantry in both DSII and SGII? (Mind you, I'll probably do it
anyway, but it'd be interesting to hear if its desired or not.)
I'd like to see em'!
> Alexander Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Samuel Penn wrote: