It's the program default to yEnc files because it conserves
bandwidth.
It is not a separate process.
I haven't yet been able to find if it even can be bypassed.
I guess I could change the extensions to txt but my guess
is that most having problems with this don't know what
extensions are or could find the dot to be able to change
them back.
It's really funny how there's such a furor over this, when
the post is explicitly directed to one person.
Oh, well.
Once upon a time, some were upset when roads were
paved because of the unknown effect on their horses
and buggies. Today we wonder how there was any
transit accomplished at all with the slowness from muddy
ruts. Change is.
For anyone that doesn't have a clue what yEnc is, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YEnc.
You can <think> of it this way-
Every character sent is represented by a number.
If you only sent capital letters and numbers in English,
you'd need 26+10=36 (A-Z,+0-9) numbers, plus a
few for punctuation and carriage return / line feed.
Add lower case - that's 26 more.
Add basic block graphics,, or fancier graphics, or color,
that's more and more numbers.
Or, you could have the code for A, plus a code for
lower case, plus a code for red, and when your
computer saw these 3 in a row, it converted them into
one character.
Is it more efficient to send one number or three, and to
have the computer convert three to one or to display
them directly?
The file sent is the same - a jpg is a jpg. The difference is
the number of character used to do it.
End of lesson. For more, go to Google.com.
I've got glue to do before it hits 100 outside.
Then I'll see what I can I do on the postings.
Cheers to all.
--J
> I'd be happy to post some jpgs after I finish the trim glue-up
> tomorrow as long as you promise not to whine about yEnc. They would
> be in
> the binaries group.
>
Well hell Joe - just don't encode it - problem solved.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 01 Jun 2012 11:12:57 GMT, Joe <Joe@Joe'sPlace.com <invalid>> wrote:
>It's the program default to yEnc files because it conserves
>bandwidth. It is not a separate process.
Yes, it damn well is.
>I haven't yet been able to find if it even can be bypassed.
Most programs can change the default including the Agent version that
I use.
>It's really funny how there's such a furor over this, when
>the post is explicitly directed to one person. Oh, well.
Then email that person privately. This is a group of people, all of
them with different needs and wants. It's only common sense to make
information available to the widest audience.
On 6/1/2012 6:12 AM, Joe <Joe@Joe'sPlace.com wrote:
> It's the program default to yEnc files because it conserves
> bandwidth.
> It is not a separate process.
> I haven't yet been able to find if it even can be bypassed.
> I guess I could change the extensions to txt but my guess
> is that most having problems with this don't know what
> extensions are or could find the dot to be able to change
> them back.
> It's really funny how there's such a furor over this, when
> the post is explicitly directed to one person.
> Oh, well.
> Once upon a time, some were upset when roads were
> paved because of the unknown effect on their horses
> and buggies. Today we wonder how there was any
> transit accomplished at all with the slowness from muddy
> ruts. Change is.
You could not be more misguided on the issue. yEnc, and UseNet itself,
is instead equivalent to your "horse and buggy" in the 21st century.
Years ago yEnc was cobbled together for those who were into "file
sharing" when a binary UseNet newsgroup was one of the few ways to do
so. Those who do most of file sharing in this day and age have moved on
to "bit torrent", and most of those have never heard of UseNet, or yEnc.
IOW, it is an little used scheme in today's networked world of email and
bit torrent clients, AAMOF it is even non-standard technology in that it
does NOT even comply with the RFC 977/3977 for NNTP, and is, and always
has been IME, error prone to boot.
If you're going to use it, expect most not to see your yEnc encoded
content, not because you're somehow on the cutting edge, as you imply,
but because you insist on using what is arguably a horse and buggy
technology in the 21st century.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop