Clarence et alia,
Like I said in my message MIME64 is standard with "all them other
browsers" ... thus when you look at the file size it is already decoded
by NS. If you were using MSIE that would *also* be the case. Have
whomever send the damn file to me -- and I'll wager that it will be in
temp directory unencoded and it will be the unencoded size.
Of *course* an encoded binary is bigger than a plain one! It takes more
than a single lower ASCII symbol/letter to represent each byte in a
binary.
However, you are correct in one area -- I was wrong. I hadn't followed
all the multiple copies of perambulations on the mailing list.
It is not a failure of 1.66 to DEcode, it is a failure in how it
*ENCODES* ... like I *think* you're saying in your message.
Yes, all attached files -- other than those which end in .txt -- are
encoded when they are attached to any e-mail by any internet mail
software. MIME and UU are the two standards, UU being older and
producing larger files ... thus most e-mail tosser/receivers default to
MIME to encode outgoing attachments. [See if you can find a non-text
attachment in your inbox, check the number given it by arachne, and then
shell out and look at that cmn file using a regular editor ... you'll
see mega bunches of lower ASCII symbols, line after line after line.]
Regardless of what the encoding method used was, a decent mail handler
can read the heading on the attachment [which is really just a special
part of the text e-mail file at the end of it] and determine if the file
needs UUdecode or MIME decoding. The decoding is done automatically,
and the resultant file is placed in a temp directory until/unless you
decided to save it, or the temp directory is clearned.
It shouldn't matter which type of encoding is used; if the headers are
correct, the receiving mail program will automatically decode it.
So, it is narrowed down now ... not to bad encryption [because if Sam
uses MIME decoding the file is fine], but apparently to the attachment
headers placed in the flatfile [which is message plus attachment].
What I would like is to tie it down *very* specifically.
If someone who has the file in question, and is running 1.66, would
attach the file to a private message it would be appreciated.
And then I will need the same file in question sent to me as an
attachment by someone using 1.64.
If you'll do that, I can do comparisons of the actual encoded
attachments ... and see where 1.66 is different from 1.64 If someone
wants to send me the same file as an attachment, using NS or MSIE, that
would also be interesting.
Just don't everybody send me just any file. Please, just the people
who've been tossing this very same file back and forth... only that way
can I compare what is getting done that shouldn't be or what isn't
getting done that should be.
And PLEASE in the subject line put something like "attachment test" ...
the inner guts of the message will tell which mail tosser you used so
you don't have to say 1.66 or 1.64 or NS or MSIE.
OK???
l.d.
====
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:41:32 -0500, Clarence Verge wrote:
> L.D. Best wrote:
>> Uh guys ..
>> Any binary file attached to e-mail *must* be encoded -- either MIME or
>> UU. That includes zip files.
>> You've apparently found the problem, but it's not what you think it is.
>> <G>
>> The problem is that Arachne has, for some reason in ver 1.66, stopped
>> automatically decoding certain attached files.
> Uh L.D.....;
> The failure of Arachne to decode them doesn't enter into the picture when
> they get received by Netscape. When Ron sends the file to me with A1.64
> I receive it fine with Netscape. If he sends it with A1.66, the file grows
> to the size Sam said he received.
> Sam got it back to the right size with MIME64.exe.
> Now. Either ALL files are MIME64 encoded and Netscape automatically decodes
> them invisibly - excepting files sent by A166 wich may have the wrong type
> set - thereby confusing Netscape, Arachne, and whatever Sam receives with,
> OR .... hell I don't know - could it be simply that we really can send 8 bit
> info down the pipe and have been doing so for some time ?
> At least as attachments ? I have Netscape set to "Allow 8 bit" I see my
> Arachne has "MailBodyEncoding" set to 7bit. But what about attachments ?
> I really don't see any reason (except possibly protocol) to not allow 8 bit.
> And, of course, the tendency of some modems to hangup when they get certain
> strings <G>
> Seriously, allowing for your expertise in these matters L.D., it looks like
> it could be wrong file type. Should be easy enough to check.
> - Clarence Verge
> --
> - Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/
> --
--
Learn about B'FOR
Join B'FOR - B'mothers For Open Records
<a href="http://www.b-for.org">B'FOR web site</a>
[Associate members of triad also welcome; membership confidential.]
Every member counts! We need numbers to produce valid statistics.
-- Arachne V1.64, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
