Hector Santos <[email protected]> writes: > I know this is an old method for file attachments, but I would be > interesting to know the extent of existing systems have decided to pull > support for uuencoded file attachment at the inbound side.
> I ask because I came around at least one system, GMAIL.COM, who does not > support uuencoded file attachments in their WEB interface. Do you really mean a uuencoded file *attachment*, in the MIME sense, or do you mean the historic uuencode behavior of just dumping the uuencode output into the undelimited body of the message? I ask because I've never seen the former, but that's what "attachment" means in the world of e-mail. If you mean the latter, there's a fundamental problem here that MIME solves, namely that it's impossible to know for certain that you're dealing with a uuencoded file. You can make a guess based on a line starting with "begin " followed by some lines that look encoded, but it's a pretty ugly heuristic and isn't reliable engineering. uuencode is still moderately common on Usenet. I've not seen a uuencoded file in e-mail for years. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
