Subject: Binary

From: Raja BrewHaHa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07:19:42 -0600 (MDT)

Your editor's behaviour of wrapping long lines is especially annoying when trying to transfer files in 8bit binary mode....The wrapping will inevitably cause errors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Timothy J Luoma <luomat+Lists/Unix/[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 98 10:54:36 -0400

> Your editor's behaviour of wrapping long lines is especially annoying when
> trying to transfer files in 8bit binary mode....The wrapping will
> inevitably cause errors.

A) Why are you sending binaries via email rather than ftp?

B) Why are you opening binaries in an editor rather than just attaching them  
(in the headers of PINE)?

Wrapping *SHOULD* be done on the text of a message, but not the attachments.

If you aren't attaching them, this is pilot error (ie you)

If you are attaching them (using the Attchmnt: header) then it is a PINE  
error, but I've transferred binaries this way when I had to and there was no  
problem.

TjL

---

From: Raja BrewHaHa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:07:42 -0600 (MDT)

> A) Why are you sending binaries via email rather than ftp?

Because not everyone has filespace for me to SEND to.

> If you aren't attaching them, this is pilot error (ie you)

If I attach them, Pine puts them in Base 64 beyond my control, which isn't as universal as JustSend8, or 8bitmime, especially with old mailers. Attachments certainly require human knowledge of MIME, which is more common.

Why bother going through the trouble of telling someone how to get and use a base64 tool, when an 8bit binary will do the trick 9 times out of 10.

I've also received several (about 10) messages where the paragraphs were NOT wrapped. Pine wrapped them correctly in the viewer.

---

From: Timothy J Luoma <luomat+Lists/Unix/[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 98 11:25:10 -0400

> Because not everyone has filespace for me to SEND to.

Then put it on a webpage and let those who want it download it.

You needn't make it publically available, make a directory like  
'privatestuff' touch 'index.html' and put the file in that directory.

Tell those who want it where to find it.

Email is the wrong method of sending binaries no matter how man people use  
it.  See 'man uuencode' for a good look at how inefficient it is (25 or 35%  
IIRC)

> If I attach them, Pine puts them in Base 64 beyond my control,

What kind of file is it?  Have you tried (g)zip-ping it (depending on who  
you are sending it to)

TjL

---

From: Edan Idzerda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 12:03:55 -0400 (EDT)

> Because not everyone has filespace for me to SEND to.

Ah, but they have mail spool space?  Ok, whatever--I don't think FTP
is the answer either.

> If I attach them, Pine puts them in Base 64 beyond my control, which isn't as universal as JustSend8, or 8bitmime, especially with old mailers. Attachments certainly require human knowledge of MIME…

I think it's odd that these people with old mailers have modern mail 
delivery programs, but again, not the point.  It sounds like in 
your daily practice you don't have a problem with mailers stripping
out your high bit from under you.

You bring up a good point;  it might be a nice feature if Pine gave you 
a choice of encodings.

> Why bother going through the trouble of telling someone how to get and use a base64 tool, when an 8bit binary will do the trick 9 times out of 10.

I believe that Pico has a limitation of 255 character lines.  There is
no motivation to extend that limitation, because it is a simple text 
editor.

If you wish to include binary files directly in your messages, you'll
need to use Pine's "alternate editor" facility.  I personally use 
"enable-alternate-editor-implicitly" to invoke it automatically.

- edan

---

From: Raja BrewHaHa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:28:40 -0600 (MDT)

If your girlfriend asked you for a binary, would you make it public?

> it.  See 'man uuencode' for a good look at how inefficient it is (25 or 35%  

That's over 8bit. 8bit, MIME or not, is just as efficient as binary FTP, maybe a little bit more efficient, counting overhead--definitely more efficient if you count the overhead in the assumption that your recipient even HAS ftp access.
They could be on FidoNet.

> What kind of file is it?  Have you tried (g)zip-ping it (depending on who  

My version of Pine puts HTML attachments in Base 64. I don't see any place in the mimetypes file for changing that.

Basically, my question is this: Why can't I make a binary into the main message instead of making it an attachment? Pine won't necessarily document the font correctly in that case, and who will care? On another viewpoint, there's these paragraphs that Pine warps into lines.

---

From: Raja BrewHaHa <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:48:49 -0600 (MDT)

> out your high bit from under you.

Let's assume I'm talking FidoNet then. They adopted 8bit last decade. That makes them both modern and old. Then again, I might not be talking about FidoNet, since only DEC provides an 8bit (JustSend8) SMTP mailer "PATCH" in compliance with RFC 821.

I've had no problems with the 8th bit being stripped from foreign language messages, even with intermediary SMTP.

> no motivation to extend that limitation, because it is a simple text 

If it remains a simple text editor and only SMTP compatible, Pine and Pico will eventually die and be supplanted by MH or something that does X.400. As far as that 255 character line length limitation, if I ever bother to adjust Pine myself the second thing I'll do is make that limit 2^16 or 2^32.

8bit software went out with the Apple ][.

> "enable-alternate-editor-implicitly" to invoke it automatically.

Well...if there's an editor which doesn't give command-line or low-level programming language facilities, and it's as convenient as Pine, I'll test it for stability and recommend it to my sysop.

...If everyone does that, then who would waste time developing Pico?

---

From: "Robin S. Socha" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 1998 19:13:14 +0200

* Raja BrewHaHa <[email-masked]> writes:

(blablabla)
> Basically, my question is this: Why can't I make a binary into
> the main message instead of making it an attachment? Pine won't
> necessarily document the font correctly in that case, and who
> will care?

man uuencode

-- 
Robin S. Socha M.A. 
Control Risks Ltd. <http://www.crg.com/>

---

From: "Robin S. Socha" <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jun 1998 20:36:53 +0200

> On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Edan Idzerda wrote:

Hello, Troll...

(...)

> Well...if there's an editor which doesn't give command-line or
> low-level programming language facilities, and it's as convenient
> as Pine, I'll test it for stability and recommend it to my sysop.

Dear Raja, thank you for playing. Really, it's ok. We got your
message. Yes, we feel sorry for you. Let me assure you that it'll
go away when you grow up. Really...

> ....If everyone does that, then who would waste time developing
> Pico?

*sigh*

*plonk*

*sigh*

Robin

---

From: Timothy J Luoma <luomat+Lists/Unix/[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 98 16:19:34 -0400

> If it remains a simple text editor and only SMTP compatible, Pine and Pico
> will eventually die and be supplanted by MH or something that does X.400.

There are other mailers out there already.

PINE and PICO have the advantage of being simple and easy to use.  If you  
want something more, there are other options for you rather than forcing all  
the PINE/PICO users in the world to put up with code bloat for a feature only  
you seem to care about.

> As far as that 255 character line length limitation, if I ever bother to
> adjust Pine myself the second thing I'll do is make that limit 2^16 or
> 2^32.

Go for it.  That's the nice thing about having source.

> Well...if there's an editor which doesn't give command-line or low-level
> programming language facilities, and it's as convenient as Pine, I'll test
> it for stability and recommend it to my sysop.

pine/pico are stable and convenient because they do what they do in a very  
simple way.

> My version of Pine puts HTML attachments in Base 64.

Mine puts HTML files as text/plain.

There ain't no way to put an attachment in the body of the message, other  
than uuencode.

If your recipients really don't have access to the web and you really don't  
have a web page, and you really can't get around this using zip or gzip  
(which would make the attachment smaller anyway) then I think you are SOL as  
far as using PINE for this.

TjL

---

From: Edan Idzerda <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:05:15 -0400 (EDT)

> If it remains a simple text editor and only SMTP compatible, Pine and Pico will eventually die and be supplanted by MH or something that does X.400. As far as that 255 character line length limitation, if I ever bother to adjust Pine myself the second t

hing I'll do is make that limit 2^16 or 2^32.

Hah hah, sure, the people who use Pine with Pico are going to switch
to MH.

In general, there's no point to extending Pico's editing capabilities to 
enable binary files.  It doesn't make it a "stupid" program; the Pine
designers intend for you to use file attachments.  For most of the
internet, I think that's reasonable.

Pico is a line editor, not a binary editor.  Besides, you don't want
to *edit* binary files, correct?  You just don't want them to be 
encoded, which Pine enforces with an iron base64 fist.

It could be more useful in your case, if Pine allowed you to select 
your encoding method.  (It doesn't because sending 8bit files directly
is generally thought of as a bad idea.)

> ...If everyone does that, then who would waste time developing Pico?

Not everyone uses a different editor.  

Changing NLINE and NSTRING in pico/estruct.h to support longer line 
lengths seems to be enough.  I wouldn't recommend 2^32, though.

Good luck with your peculiar situation.
 
- edan

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:04:22 -0500 (CDT)

What is your problem? Despite your complaint about pico breaking lines longer
than 254 characters, you have no trouble annoying me by sending lines in text
messages longer than 80 characters.

The reason one doesn't send binaries in text messages is because mail transport
is known to corrupt long lines, given that it was never designed not to. It is
irrelevant if you can make it leave your own system intact. It is unlikely to
arrive intact on the far end.

>From: Raja BrewHaHa <[email-masked]>
>Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:07:42 -0600 (MDT)

>Because not everyone has filespace for me to SEND to.

If they don't have space for it, what the hell do you expect them to do with it
once they receive it?

>If I attach them, Pine puts them in Base 64 beyond my control, which isn't as
>universal as JustSend8, or 8bitmime, especially with old mailers. Attachments
>certainly require human knowledge of MIME, which is more common.

The pine developers feel that Base 64 encoding tends to survive mail transport
better than other methods. I'll take their word for it, unless you intend to
make a supportable argument to the contrary.

uuencode is extremely common, and is the tool to deal with Base 64.

>Why bother going through the trouble of telling someone how to get and use a
>base64 tool, when an 8bit binary will do the trick 9 times out of 10.

So that the attachment arrives intact. That's a good reason.

>I've also received several (about 10) messages where the paragraphs were NOT
>wrapped. Pine wrapped them correctly in the viewer. 

Bully for you.

---

From: Edan Idzerda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:05:59 -0400 (EDT)

> uuencode is extremely common, and is the tool to deal with Base 64.

Call me a chatterbox today, but uudecode deals with the "uuencode"
format--not base64.  Dealing with base64 when you don't have a
MIME-compliant mail reader can be a pain.

- edan

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:31:41 -0500 (CDT)

>From: Edan Idzerda <[email-masked]>
>Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 00:05:59 -0400 (EDT)

>format--not base64.

POSIX-compliant uuencode -m encodes base64. The formats are rather similar.
Today, aren't all uuencodes using base64?

---

From: Ken Stevens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:22:45 -0700 (PDT)

Do you know of any tool that can deal with base-64 format?

Ken

---

From: "Adam H. Kerman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 01:40:25 -0500 (CDT)

>From: Ken Stevens <[email-masked]>
>Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:22:45 -0700 (PDT)

>Do you know of any tool that can deal with base-64 format?

uuencode/uudecode -m on Linux; you may need to invoke a different option on your
unix.

And, of course, pine. Attachments encoded in base64 are automatically decoded.

---

From: Norbert Koch <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Jul 1998 08:40:25 +0200

Ken Stevens writes:

> Do you know of any tool that can deal with base-64 format?  Ken

Hmm, which platform? What do you want to do?

Pine can handle it (that's what the discussion is about, partly, I
guess).

XEmacs :-)

mmencode (UNIX)

I think, Netscape is also able to handle it.

That is: All of these tools should be able to extract the data
contained in base64 encoded text.

L8er, norbert.

-- 
Norbert Koch, DELTA Industrie Informatik GmbH, Fellbach, Germany.
YOW: A wide-eyed, innocent UNICORN, poised delicately in a MEADOW filled with
 LILACS, LOLLIPOPS & small CHILDREN at the HUSH of twilight??

---

From: Terry Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:43:39 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)

> If I attach them, Pine puts them in Base 64 beyond my control, which
> isn't as universal as JustSend8, or 8bitmime, especially with old
> mailers. Attachments certainly require human knowledge of MIME, which
> is more common.

I'm not quite sure that the "is more common" refers to, but Base 64 is in
fact the principal encoding scheme of MIME.

As others have mentioned, there are good reasons for encoding attachments
--if you care about them arriving intact-- but it is also true that if you
turn on Pine's feature to enable esmtp negotiation *and* you have an ESMTP
capable MTA that supports 8BITMIME, then Pine will negotiate the use of
8BITMIME rather than Base64 MIME.

-teg