Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:2056 comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:160 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!ncar!noao!mcdsun!mcdchg!clyde!feg From: feg@clyde.ATT.COM (Forrest Gehrke) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Re: Standard for file transmission Message-ID: <25925@clyde.ATT.COM> Date: 5 May 88 13:46:52 GMT References: <292@cullsj.UUCP> <696@fig.bbn.com> <18621@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10712@steinmetz.ge.com> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany NJ Lines: 21 Summary: Amen to both of these suggestions! In article <10712@steinmetz.ge.com>, davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) writes: > > I would like to add a little fuel to the fires of "which archiver" > discussion. Use of the 'btoa' routine instead of uuencode would save > 12% (!) on binary postings. This is a PD program, included in the > compress package, and runs just fine on a PC. Having tried this sometime back, I have often wondered why this approach is not used by USENET. It would save a lot of transmission time. > All the discussion of using PKARC to save 1-2% or not using it to save > time for many of the people on the net seems pointless. We should use > both (standard) arc and zoo formats, uuencode them, and save bandwidth > by dropping this discussion. Hopefully Rahul will clarify this by edict. Also an excellent suggestion. We could quickly find out from experience which archiver works out best through use. BTW what is holding up Rahul from taking over as moderator? Forrest Gehrke k2bt