X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Will Parsons <oudeis AT nodomain DOT invalid>
Subject:  Re: Attachment without nntp
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:51:59 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 40
Message-ID:  <slrnfsh34f.tpv.oudeis@isis.thalatta.eme>
References:  <a80482d0802221032t65ce5184x50c1da849fb7dbbc AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <005c01c87584$518c6f30$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <loom DOT 20080224T135049-312 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <012c01c876f1$94f095d0$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <loom DOT 20080225T102956-902 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <003601c8779b$4af55f10$2e08a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> <loom DOT 20080225T111859-263 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <47C2D268 DOT 2080300 AT cygwin DOT com> <loom DOT 20080225T151147-66 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <loom DOT 20080226T113255-808 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <loom DOT 20080229T110143-748 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> <47C80546 DOT 6060005 AT byu DOT net> <slrnfsh0gu DOT tpv DOT oudeis AT isis DOT thalatta DOT eme> <47C8885E DOT 816E8BD5 AT dessent DOT net>
Reply-To: ellenophilos AT yahoo DOT com
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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/