"Sj" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:12:10 +1000, "The Raven"
wrote:

"G Paleologopoulos" wrote in message
news:1251118387.485792@athprx03...
"hielan' laddie" wrote
...
.................................
One more time:

Every single binary posted on USENET is encoded using some method or
another.
....................................


May humbly suggest to a.b.p.a readers to check out "yEnc" @ Wikipedia
and
also to check out the references contained in the article.
Opinions and conclusions will be per individual.
I offer none to the group.
My ***own*** is that yEnc is much-ado-about-nothing today, and
non-standard to boot.

Agreed. It's just another pseudo standard that few use. I hate it
primarily
because it offers NOTHING any of the current encoding methods provide AND
that it has a tendency to be used for multi-part messages that invariably
are incomplete. In essence, it does nothing.

Remember (for those of you old enough) the wars over ARC, LZH, ZIP, RAR
etc?
What a waste that was and we still came back to ZIP, one of the very first
standards. All the rest tried to be better but generally failed.

I disagree w/ you on this ... both rar's & zip's work nicely for
me ...

Yes, Zip and RAR are common standards. ZIP predominantly for the MS based
systems (historically anyway). RAR tends to be non-MS specific, which I have
no problems with. Beyond these two all the other contenders for the file
compression crown have failed. Similarly, yEnc may offer some technical
benefit (no idea what) but it offers nothing practical that can't be
achieved by using default encoding methods.

As for yEnc, unless someone complains about yEnc, I don't
even notice its use, as my Agent deals w/ it seamlessly ...

Mine will now handle yEnc BUT, as 90% of the yEnc posts consist of missing
multi-part messages it's a mute point.


And I'm not into DVD's, mp3's, warez, any of the big stuff ...


Same here.