Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!doc
From: doc@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Flight Simulator II (and uuencode mess-ups) [long]
Message-ID: <2880@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Fri, 9-Jan-87 12:03:26 EST
Article-I.D.: j.2880
Posted: Fri Jan  9 12:03:26 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Jan-87 05:59:40 EST
References: <2280@well.UUCP> <340@oliveb.UUCP> <8232@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <5017@amdahl.UUCP>
Reply-To: doc@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Craig Norborg)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 17

In article <5017@amdahl.UUCP> kim@amdahl.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) writes:
>Yes.  ARC would save about 18K in this case, plus the two postings
>required for the above two files (after uuencoding the executable)
>could have been reduced to one posting, and still been under the 64K
>"limit".
    There is one problem I think you all are missing.  For reliable 
transfer of binary files across USENET (read both mail and news), you
MUST convert them to readable characters of some format or another.
Sending binary files (which ANY arc'd file is), is not reliable, so
you would still have to uuencode the arc'd file.  Sure this may save
some time, but not that much!  And then, it would probably be more
preferable to use compress instead of arc, since alot more people have
access to compress, that do not have access to arc.
    -Craig Norborg
    comp.sources.amiga moderator
    doc@j.cc.purdue.edu
BTW: Arc (uuencoded and probably split) will be one of my next postings...