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...