On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:13:12 -0500, "Don Pyeatt"
wrote:



You might be a good photographer but your arithmetic skills are somewhat
lacking.

:-)

gdp



7207 lines isn't almost 3 times 2595 (to be more precise, 2.78
rounded)? Get a new battery for your calculator.

330KB/444KB is squeakily close to .75. A mere 25% reduction in file size..
Perhaps your mail reader has puked.

All of your flap over a mere 25% reduction - seems your holy grail is made
of pewter.




I'm assuming you're talking about the size of the encoded files, since
the file in both cases is about 317 KB. Since a typical yEnc file is
barely bigger than the unencoded file, 330KB would be believable,
while 444 is believable for UU encoding.

I was comparing line counts, forgetting that is not valid since yEnc
lines are longer (and variable) while UU lines are shorter and rarely
vary in length. However, in my defense, I'm normally comparing apples
to apples (yEnc to yEnc, not yEnc to UU).

Nonetheless, the file size difference you list is nothing to scoff at.
It does mean yEnc files would take up less server space, although I'll
admit providers like Giganews are making that a non-issue with their
mammoth server capabilities. The real advantages left are faster
downloading (and uploading)--about 70% of the time UU files require,
which is quite meaningful if you upload or download a lot. And if
there are restrictions on how much you can download or upload (some
people still face that, including members of this group), even a
reduction of the size you noted is quite real in its consequences.
There's nothing "mere" about 25%.

But are the undeniable gains from yEnc worth it? Well, as several on
this group have noted, being able to decode yEnc attachments need not
cost you any money, and you don't have to acquire any new skills. So
even if you think I have overstated the benefit, the cost (in dollars
or otherwise) isa negligible.