The last word on yEnc

"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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.