Re: does uudecode actually work?

From: Tony Ross <>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:35:08 GMT
Message-ID: <>

Thanks for that observation on the functionality, Peter.

Although uuencoded files as attachments are handled as you suggest, it would good if uuencoded files as inline content (the traditional transport method) were decoded and converted to a MIME attachment.

In your estimation, what would be required to accomplish this? I'm just curious how all the other people have handled this somewhat antiquated transport method using hypermail.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 6/28/00, 1:23:31 PM, (Peter C. McCluskey) wrote regarding Re: does uudecode actually work?:

> (Tony Ross) writes:
> >Greetings;
> >
> >We are receiving quite a number of emails with uuencoded files in the
> >body, and hypermail 2b29 is not uudecode'ing these; it leaves the
> >uuencoded file in the body of the html file.

> It looks from skimming the relevant parts of the source code like
> uudecode is only used for mime attachments that say they are
> I don't see any reason to decode other uuencoded text. The uuencoded
> I recently sent (not as an attachment) wouldn't look very good if it
> decoded into a gzip'd tar file.
> --

> Peter McCluskey | The US Idea Futures Exchange: speculate on
> | political,financial issues at Received on Thu 29 Jun 2000 02:52:00 AM GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu 22 Feb 2007 07:33:52 PM GMT GMT