X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Will Parsons Subject: Re: Attachment without nntp Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:51:59 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <005c01c87584$518c6f30$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <012c01c876f1$94f095d0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <003601c8779b$4af55f10$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <47C2D268.2080300@cygwin.com> <47C80546.6060005@byu.net> <47C8885E.816E8BD5@dessent.net> Reply-To: ellenophilos@yahoo.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Brian Dessent wrote: > Will Parsons wrote: > >> 4) If using the uuencode method for attachments is not (or no longer?) >> desired, is there a preferred alternative? (And please don't suggest >> using Thunderbird.) > > When posting your cygcheck output, you're asking for help from others > and giving them some details that they can look at in order to better > help you. If you make it hard or cumbersome for them to look at it, > chances are they won't. I know I certainly would not take the time to > manually copy and paste and uudecode somebody's cygcheck output, whereas > it's trivial for me to look at an attachment. It's just like on busy > patches lists where if you send a patch gzipped or with a content-type > that's not plain text, people will tend to not review the patch because > it takes extra annoying steps to view the file. I certainly don't *want* to make it inconvenient for potential responders - I simply thought that uuencoding was the way one "attached" using the nntp interface. If doing so is an annoyance rather than a help, I certainly won't do it in the future. What then is the recommendation - include it because it's better than no cygcheck output at all, or don't bother? > So if you want to use uuencode that's fine as far as I'm concerned, as > long as you are willing to accept that your question will more than > likely get less exposure, given that the majority of people that would > be inspecting cygcheck output are subscribed to the list and read it in > its native email format. > > As a compromise, you could put the cygcheck output on a pastebin-like > site and provide a URL. I'm not sure what a pastebin-like site is, but would it really be more convenient for someone to go to a web site to retrieve output than to uudecode the mail? (I don't know about the mail reader you use, but for me, uudecoding is a couple of keystrokes in slrn - no manual copying and pasting required.) - Will -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/