The last word on yEnc

[Don Pyeatt]

You can bet your butt this won't be it.

[Alan[_1_]]

I previously gleaned the attached from this group over the very same
subject.
Alan

"Don Pyeatt" > wrote in message
...
> You can bet your butt this won't be it.
>
>
>

[Jim Breckenridge]

Don Pyeatt wrote:
> You can bet your butt this won't be it.
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:37:23 GMT, "Alan" >
wrote:

>I previously gleaned the attached from this group over the very same
>subject.
>Alan
>

They sure do **** and moan enough en? You can only feel sorry for the
Luddites.

>"Don Pyeatt" > wrote in message
...
>> You can bet your butt this won't be it.
>>
>>
>>
>

[Clairbear]

"Don Pyeatt" > wrote in :

> You can bet your butt this won't be it.
>
>
>

Yenc so simple a caveman can do it

[Glenn[_2_]]

"Clairbear" > wrote in message
...
> "Don Pyeatt" > wrote in :
>
>> You can bet your butt this won't be it.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yenc so simple a caveman can do it

Yet, they're extinct.

Probably because they persisted in telling people to upgrade to the Betacam
VCR as it was better.

[Clairbear]

"Glenn" > wrote in
:

>
> "Clairbear" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Don Pyeatt" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> You can bet your butt this won't be it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yenc so simple a caveman can do it
>
> Yet, they're extinct.
>
> Probably because they persisted in telling people to upgrade to the
> Betacam VCR as it was better.
>
>

Never seen Geico commercials? I guess that would be why you don't get the
humor>

Any way Sony had a better idea with beta, Commodore had a better idea the
Amiga, Tucker had a better idea with his Torpedo.
But people don't always accept the better way because by nature many of
our species fear progress. That is why the caveman is extinct

I don't poist with yenc but I support the right of those who choose to save
band width by doing so

[Ray O'Hara[_2_]]

"Glenn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clairbear" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Don Pyeatt" > wrote in
:
> >
> >> You can bet your butt this won't be it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yenc so simple a caveman can do it
>
> Yet, they're extinct.

actually they are not, they just live in houses and apartment buildings
these days

[flybywire]

can someone pls remind me why a yenc jpeg is better than a jpeg

cheers

Mike


"Ray O'Hara" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Glenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clairbear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Don Pyeatt" > wrote in
> :
>> >
>> >> You can bet your butt this won't be it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yenc so simple a caveman can do it
>>
>> Yet, they're extinct.
>
> actually they are not, they just live in houses and apartment buildings
> these days
>
>

[Adhominem]

flybywire wrote:

> can someone pls remind me why a yenc jpeg is better than a jpeg

A yenc jpeg is a jpeg. There is no difference.

To be a bit more elaborate: Newsgroups are by design a text-only medium. If
you want to send binary data such as pictures (be they jpeg, png, gif...),
movies and whatnot via a text-only medium, you have to jump through some
hoops to make that possible. The traditional methods, uuencode and base64,
add 30%-40% of overhead to a file when transcribing it for Usenet, while
yEnc adds only 1%-2%.

Example: If you want to post a 2MB jpeg file and encode it with base64 or
uuencode, your post will have a size of about 2.8MB, while a yEnc-encoded
post containing the same jpeg file will come in at only slightly more than
2 MB. The actual data transcribed is no different.

[Clairbear]

"flybywire" > wrote in news:SFmoi.145$gX5.115@newsfe2-
win.ntli.net:

> can someone pls remind me why a yenc jpeg is better than a jpeg
>
> cheers
>
> Mike
It is all a matter of perception Those who like the covenience of saving
bandwidth when downloading or uploading a lot of pics Those who don't or
refuse to use it froth at the mouth when others do. I don't post with it
but can download and decode them I can take or leave it.Why flame those
who use it Either don't downlod it or quietly killfile those who do if you
don't want it.

[flybywire]

ta must try to use it one day

"Adhominem" > wrote in message
...
> flybywire wrote:
>
>> can someone pls remind me why a yenc jpeg is better than a jpeg
>
> A yenc jpeg is a jpeg. There is no difference.
>
> To be a bit more elaborate: Newsgroups are by design a text-only medium.
> If
> you want to send binary data such as pictures (be they jpeg, png, gif...),
> movies and whatnot via a text-only medium, you have to jump through some
> hoops to make that possible. The traditional methods, uuencode and base64,
> add 30%-40% of overhead to a file when transcribing it for Usenet, while
> yEnc adds only 1%-2%.
>
> Example: If you want to post a 2MB jpeg file and encode it with base64 or
> uuencode, your post will have a size of about 2.8MB, while a yEnc-encoded
> post containing the same jpeg file will come in at only slightly more than
> 2 MB. The actual data transcribed is no different.

[Elmo von Thud]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:07:14 GMT, "flybywire" > wrote:

>can someone pls remind me why a yenc jpeg is better than a jpeg
>
>cheers
>
>Mike

Although I've never posted using yEnc encoding b4, I think it is an
excellent method of keeping file sizes and download times down to a
minimum.

I vividly recall people complaining on this news group about others
posting beautiful high resolution images because it took too long to
download with their dial-up modems and it cut into their ISP limited
quotas.

I just went to alt.binaries.test and uploaded a 5.1MB file using
UUEncode, and then repeated the process using yEnc, and guess what...
There was a 280% reduction in the size of the file with no loss in
image quality.

Even when downloading via a broadband connection it soon makes a big
difference in MBs downloaded and time taken to do so when using the ye
olde fashion UUEncode method.

I have yet to read or hear an even remotely convincing argument as to
why the use of yEnc should be avoided... I've heard a lot of lame ones
though.

Elmo von Thud

[Maple1]

Elmo von Thud wrote:

>
> I have yet to read or hear an even remotely convincing argument as to
> why the use of yEnc should be avoided... I've heard a lot of lame ones
> though.
>
> Elmo von Thud


Here is a good reason

YENC is not one encoding method there are a few different methods all
called YENC The code is not cosistaint that is why even Thunderbird has
problems with it.

[Tom Inglima]

Because many of us do not have readers for it, and don't want to become
computer freak's. It is more junk to load onto the computer.

Tom Inglima


"Elmo von Thud" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:07:14 GMT, "flybywire" > wrote:
>
>>can someone pls remind me why a yenc jpeg is better than a jpeg
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>Mike
>
> Although I've never posted using yEnc encoding b4, I think it is an
> excellent method of keeping file sizes and download times down to a
> minimum.
>
> I vividly recall people complaining on this news group about others
> posting beautiful high resolution images because it took too long to
> download with their dial-up modems and it cut into their ISP limited
> quotas.
>
> I just went to alt.binaries.test and uploaded a 5.1MB file using
> UUEncode, and then repeated the process using yEnc, and guess what...
> There was a 280% reduction in the size of the file with no loss in
> image quality.
>
> Even when downloading via a broadband connection it soon makes a big
> difference in MBs downloaded and time taken to do so when using the ye
> olde fashion UUEncode method.
>
> I have yet to read or hear an even remotely convincing argument as to
> why the use of yEnc should be avoided... I've heard a lot of lame ones
> though.
>
> Elmo von Thud

[Elmo von Thud]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:11:08 GMT, Maple1 > wrote:

>Elmo von Thud wrote:
>
>>
>> I have yet to read or hear an even remotely convincing argument as to
>> why the use of yEnc should be avoided... I've heard a lot of lame ones
>> though.
>>
>> Elmo von Thud
>
>
>Here is a good reason
>
>YENC is not one encoding method there are a few different methods all
>called YENC The code is not cosistaint that is why even Thunderbird has
>problems with it.

That's strange. I have been downloading hundreds of yEnc images per
month, using Forte Agent, from many different news groups for several
years now and I can't recall the last time I had file corruption
problems.

If what you claim is true, then I would be having those problems too.

Ricardo

[Elmo von Thud]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:01:56 -0400, "Tom Inglima"
> wrote:

>Because many of us do not have readers for it, and don't want to become
>computer freak's. It is more junk to load onto the computer.
>
>Tom Inglima

So, basically, what you are saying, Tom, is that because you, and
others like you, insist upon using the cheapest and nastiest software
available, every one else should also remain in the stone age, just to
keep you happy. (?)

I use Forte Agent to view/download from news groups, and the only
thing I notice when I'm downloading a yEnc file is that it has the
word "yEnc" in brackets next to the file name, otherwise the process
is exactly the same as with downloading ordinary files. I fail to see
what is so complicated or distressing about that.

If you don't want to become a "computer freak", then perhaps watching
TV would be more suitable for you.

The bottom line is if you >choose< to keep using dysfunctional
software, that's your problem.

Elmo


>"Elmo von Thud" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:07:14 GMT, "flybywire" > wrote:
>>
>>>can someone pls remind me why a yenc jpeg is better than a jpeg
>>>
>>>cheers
>>>
>>>Mike
>>
>> Although I've never posted using yEnc encoding b4, I think it is an
>> excellent method of keeping file sizes and download times down to a
>> minimum.
>>
>> I vividly recall people complaining on this news group about others
>> posting beautiful high resolution images because it took too long to
>> download with their dial-up modems and it cut into their ISP limited
>> quotas.
>>
>> I just went to alt.binaries.test and uploaded a 5.1MB file using
>> UUEncode, and then repeated the process using yEnc, and guess what...
>> There was a 280% reduction in the size of the file with no loss in
>> image quality.
>>
>> Even when downloading via a broadband connection it soon makes a big
>> difference in MBs downloaded and time taken to do so when using the ye
>> olde fashion UUEncode method.
>>
>> I have yet to read or hear an even remotely convincing argument as to
>> why the use of yEnc should be avoided... I've heard a lot of lame ones
>> though.
>>
>> Elmo von Thud
>

[Richard Brooks]

Elmo von Thud said the following on 27/07/07 09:25:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:11:08 GMT, Maple1 > wrote:
>
>> Elmo von Thud wrote:
>>
>>> I have yet to read or hear an even remotely convincing argument as to
>>> why the use of yEnc should be avoided... I've heard a lot of lame ones
>>> though.
>>>
>>> Elmo von Thud
>>
>> Here is a good reason
>>
>> YENC is not one encoding method there are a few different methods all
>> called YENC The code is not cosistaint that is why even Thunderbird has
>> problems with it.
>
> That's strange. I have been downloading hundreds of yEnc images per
> month, using Forte Agent, from many different news groups for several
> years now and I can't recall the last time I had file corruption
> problems.
>
> If what you claim is true, then I would be having those problems too.

Some of the reasons may be found here.
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119964>



--
"Initiative is punishable."
Russian business saying.

[Maple1]

I did not use the term corrupt as a mater of fact I did not say that the
files get corrupted I said there are few different methods of of codeing
in YENC that is why in Thunderbird some are decode some are not. And
if Yenc saves so much bandwidth Why the Hell does it still send s JPG in
a Multi Part File?

I wrote


>>Here is a good reason
>>
>>YENC is not one encoding method there are a few different methods all
>>called YENC The code is not cosistaint that is why even Thunderbird has
>>problems with it.
>

Ricardo replied

>
> That's strange. I have been downloading hundreds of yEnc images per
> month, using Forte Agent, from many different news groups for several
> years now and I can't recall the last time I had file corruption
> problems.
>
> If what you claim is true, then I would be having those problems too.
>
> Ricardo

[Glenn[_2_]]

>
> If you don't want to become a "computer freak", then perhaps watching
> TV would be more suitable for you.
>
That has got to be one of the stupidest comments mate.

lot's of people are not computer geeks. nor do they want to be.
I see a lot of geeks that are borderline addicts that have no social life.

Before you start generalising which group you wish to belong to,
accept that others use the internet as a tool and don't wish to become one.

[Elmo von Thud]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:52:28 GMT, Maple1 > wrote:

>I did not use the term corrupt as a mater of fact I did not say that the
>files get corrupted I said there are few different methods of of codeing
> in YENC that is why in Thunderbird some are decode some are not.

That's correct, you did not use the term "corrupt", you used the word
"problems" which could mean anything, so instead of nit picking and
splitting hairs over which word you did or didn't use, I will repeat
what I said: Using Agent Forte, I download hundreds of yEnc files
from many different newsgroups and I don't have any "problems" with
any of them.

If you >choose< to use cheap, dysfunctional software to access Usenet,
then don't blame yEnc for your problems!

>And if Yenc saves so much bandwidth Why the Hell does it still send s JPG in
>a Multi Part File?

For the same reason that large JPGs, which are NOT yEnc encoded, get
sent in multiple parts.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that evil and malicious software
vendors have done this terrible thing just to annoy people like you.

On the 23rd of July a poster calling himself "me" sent a NON-yEnc JPG
image to the aviation news group which consisted of 81 separate
parts. The vast majority of posters in this group send very SMALL low
resolution images so you don't see much in the way of multi-parts, but
in some of the other picture news groups where files are very large,
nearly all of them are split into many parts even though they have no
special encoding, just plain, old fashioned UUencode. Why? Because
if you try sending a LARGE file in one piece, there is an excellent
chance that any error in transmission will cause the posting to fail.
If you see something along the lines of (*/81) or [81/81] next to the
file header - it can be any number, that tells you that the file was
split into that many pieces when it was sent, even if on your news
reader it only shows up as one file, because your software has
automatically joined all the separate parts together... just like my
software joins all the separate yEnc bits together.

I have also read angry posts from people here who saw a NON-yEnc JPG
which their software had not joined automatically into one file,
claiming that it was a yEnc file simply because it came in many
separate parts, which of course is absolute nonsense.

Not understanding what's going on is not a sin, but lashing out in
frustration and blaming things and people, who are not at fault, is a
sin.

As some one posted in another thread, it really does seem like it's in
one ear and out the other.

Elmo

>I wrote
>
>
>>>Here is a good reason
>>>
>>>YENC is not one encoding method there are a few different methods all
>>>called YENC The code is not cosistaint that is why even Thunderbird has
>>>problems with it.
>>
>
>Ricardo replied
>
>>
>> That's strange. I have been downloading hundreds of yEnc images per
>> month, using Forte Agent, from many different news groups for several
>> years now and I can't recall the last time I had file corruption
>> problems.
>>
>> If what you claim is true, then I would be having those problems too.
>>
>> Ricardo

[Elmo von Thud]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:10:57 GMT, "Glenn" >
wrote:

>> If you don't want to become a "computer freak", then perhaps watching
>> TV would be more suitable for you.
>>
>That has got to be one of the stupidest comments mate.

Based on the "tone" of your comments, I would suggest that I am not
your mate, bub.

>lot's of people are not computer geeks. nor do they want to be.
>I see a lot of geeks that are borderline addicts that have no social life.
>
>Before you start generalising which group you wish to belong to,
>accept that others use the internet as a tool and don't wish to become one.

It's true, there are those who use the Internet as a tool, and then
there are those who are not the sharpest tools in the shed, don't know
how to use the Internet, and so set about blaming others for their own
inadequacies...

Yes, you are right, my comments are very stupid, and you are very wise
for pointing this out to me.

Elmo

[John Crawford]

Why not start a news group dedicated strictly for
yEnc so we don't have to put up with it here

--
John Crawford


Everything I Like Is either immoral,
Illegal, or Fattening

[russell[_2_]]

If posters sent individual pictures the right size, no multi part would ever
be needed. This is not a Movie NG.
It is a NG for aviation PICTURES.



"Elmo von Thud" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:52:28 GMT, Maple1 > wrote:
>
>>I did not use the term corrupt as a mater of fact I did not say that the
>>files get corrupted I said there are few different methods of of codeing
>> in YENC that is why in Thunderbird some are decode some are not.
>
> That's correct, you did not use the term "corrupt", you used the word
> "problems" which could mean anything, so instead of nit picking and
> splitting hairs over which word you did or didn't use, I will repeat
> what I said: Using Agent Forte, I download hundreds of yEnc files
> from many different newsgroups and I don't have any "problems" with
> any of them.
>
> If you >choose< to use cheap, dysfunctional software to access Usenet,
> then don't blame yEnc for your problems!
>
>>And if Yenc saves so much bandwidth Why the Hell does it still send s JPG
>>in
>>a Multi Part File?
>
> For the same reason that large JPGs, which are NOT yEnc encoded, get
> sent in multiple parts.
>
> Unless, of course, you are suggesting that evil and malicious software
> vendors have done this terrible thing just to annoy people like you.
>
> On the 23rd of July a poster calling himself "me" sent a NON-yEnc JPG
> image to the aviation news group which consisted of 81 separate
> parts. The vast majority of posters in this group send very SMALL low
> resolution images so you don't see much in the way of multi-parts, but
> in some of the other picture news groups where files are very large,
> nearly all of them are split into many parts even though they have no
> special encoding, just plain, old fashioned UUencode. Why? Because
> if you try sending a LARGE file in one piece, there is an excellent
> chance that any error in transmission will cause the posting to fail.
> If you see something along the lines of (*/81) or [81/81] next to the
> file header - it can be any number, that tells you that the file was
> split into that many pieces when it was sent, even if on your news
> reader it only shows up as one file, because your software has
> automatically joined all the separate parts together... just like my
> software joins all the separate yEnc bits together.
>
> I have also read angry posts from people here who saw a NON-yEnc JPG
> which their software had not joined automatically into one file,
> claiming that it was a yEnc file simply because it came in many
> separate parts, which of course is absolute nonsense.
>
> Not understanding what's going on is not a sin, but lashing out in
> frustration and blaming things and people, who are not at fault, is a
> sin.
>
> As some one posted in another thread, it really does seem like it's in
> one ear and out the other.
>
> Elmo
>
>>I wrote
>>
>>
>>>>Here is a good reason
>>>>
>>>>YENC is not one encoding method there are a few different methods all
>>>>called YENC The code is not cosistaint that is why even Thunderbird has
>>>>problems with it.
>>>
>>
>>Ricardo replied
>>
>>>
>>> That's strange. I have been downloading hundreds of yEnc images per
>>> month, using Forte Agent, from many different news groups for several
>>> years now and I can't recall the last time I had file corruption
>>> problems.
>>>
>>> If what you claim is true, then I would be having those problems too.
>>>
>>> Ricardo