[Ham-Computers] RE: Attachments

[Hsu, Aaron (NBC Universal)]

I didn't mention UUEncoded items as, technically, they're "in-line" attachments <g>.  As such, some servers are configured to scan for and remove the UUEncoded section ("BEGIN 664") just like any other attachment.

And, to confuse things, some e-mail servers/applications will auto-convert the UUENCODED part into a binary attachment prior to either sending it (outbound mail) or delivering it (inbound mail).  Generally done to make things "simpler", but often confusing the sender/receipient if they were expecting a UUENCODE'd section.

BTW, as far as I know, *ALL* e-mail applications and server programs know how to handle UUENCODE in some fashion or form - it's a defacto standard.  Many mail programs still offer the option to send attachments in UUENCODE vs MIME.  I've found that, for regular e-mail, "attached" attachments (not in-line) sent in UUE (vs MIME) are more likely to make it in-tact (rather than be "lost" or "stripped").  Just personal observation - your mileage may vary.

73,

  - Aaron, NN6O


-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Ham-Computers] RE: Attachments

If you really have to include an image in an email, there is always the
old-fashioned approach of using something like uuencode to convert the
binary image into a string of ASCII text and paste that text into your
message.
   Of course, the down side is that the recipients will have to decode
it (with uudecode if you used uuencode) first before being able to view
the image.
   It's been years since I've done such things, but it's still in practice
with the binary USENET newsgroups and various encoders/decoders are now
part of most newsreader software, but I don't know whether much email
software supports such things.

Frank
KE5MJZ