I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

I'm only using Netscape 4.8 (because I like it before anyone makes sarcy
comments).

Graham

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:06:28 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

I'm only using Netscape 4.8 (because I like it before anyone makes sarcy
comments).

WinZip and WinRAR each have the ability to split compressed files. IIRC,
in WinZip one creats a .zip file and then asks for it to be split; in
WinRAR the splits are created on the fly.

There are various other utilities out there to create splits from
original files; not that hard to write. The advantages to using WinZip
or WinRAR are having a standard format, an easy way to recombine the
files, and built-in error checking.

If it's a LOT of files in one split, consider also passing the lot
through QuickPar, which enables the recovery of missing pieces if enough
of the base material made it though.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:06:28 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

I'm only using Netscape 4.8 (because I like it before anyone makes sarcy
comments).

WinZip and WinRAR each have the ability to split compressed files. IIRC,
in WinZip one creats a .zip file and then asks for it to be split; in
WinRAR the splits are created on the fly.

There are various other utilities out there to create splits from
original files; not that hard to write. The advantages to using WinZip
or WinRAR are having a standard format, an easy way to recombine the
files, and built-in error checking.

If it's a LOT of files in one split, consider also passing the lot
through QuickPar, which enables the recovery of missing pieces if enough
of the base material made it though.

--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:06:28 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

I'm only using Netscape 4.8 (because I like it before anyone makes sarcy
comments).

Graham

Hard to believe that you have been in Usenet for this long and do not
know how to post a binary.

Hint: It is not a Nutscrape process.

Sections must be kept below 10k lines each.

The binary must be converted to ascii only. UUencode is the norm.

Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:06:28 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

I'm only using Netscape 4.8 (because I like it before anyone makes sarcy
comments).

Graham

Hard to believe that you have been in Usenet for this long and do not
know how to post a binary.

Hint: It is not a Nutscrape process.

Umm, yes it is. For files below the maximum size limit, one just clicks
the 'Attach' button, selects the file and Netscape (even 4.72) does the
rest.

One can zip, uuencode and all that by hand. But you risk making the post
incompatible with other news readers. Or at least a pain in the *ss to
read. I've seen far too many uuencoded binaries done by hand that
present themselves as the body of the post consisting of a few hundred
lines of gibberish. The reader has to 'Save as' and then decode by hand.
Which is guaranteed to make the less patient give up.

Sections must be kept below 10k lines each.

The binary must be converted to ascii only. UUencode is the norm.

And what about the Content-type:, Content-Transfer-Encoding: mime
headers and required attributes? There's a lot more going on under the
hood of a binary post than just making a string of silly characters.

--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.

Silly donkey...

Open up Outlook Express, check the news settings that it will split up posts
over, say, 500kB, then go ahead and attach and send. The (1/3), (2/3), etc.
bull**** is added automatically. And multipart assembly is a menu item
away.

Once again, OE wins. ;-)

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

I'm only using Netscape 4.8 (because I like it before anyone makes sarcy
comments).

Graham

On 2008-12-21, Eeyore wrote:
I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

I'm only using Netscape 4.8 (because I like it before anyone makes sarcy
comments).

the one time I posted a large binary I used newspost (it's a command-line thing)

On 2008-12-21, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

One can zip, uuencode and all that by hand. But you risk making the post
incompatible with other news readers. Or at least a pain in the *ss to
read. I've seen far too many uuencoded binaries done by hand that
present themselves as the body of the post consisting of a few hundred
lines of gibberish. The reader has to 'Save as' and then decode by hand.
Which is guaranteed to make the less patient give up.

splitting large uuencoded binaries by hand is while a "trivial" task, easy to
foul up.

Sections must be kept below 10k lines each.

The binary must be converted to ascii only. UUencode is the norm.

And what about the Content-type:, Content-Transfer-Encoding: mime
headers and required attributes? There's a lot more going on under the
hood of a binary post than just making a string of silly characters.

the only important header is the subject line, MIME does not support
file-splitting and so cannot be used to transmit large files.

(you could split the file first (eg: using rar) and then require the
recipient to reassemble them

10000 lines uuencoded (standard 62 char line length) is 450000 bytes (of
original data) but theres atleast three wrapper lines added, so if
pre-splitting do it to 449865 bytes or smaller

Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-12-21, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

One can zip, uuencode and all that by hand. But you risk making the post
incompatible with other news readers. Or at least a pain in the *ss to
read. I've seen far too many uuencoded binaries done by hand that
present themselves as the body of the post consisting of a few hundred
lines of gibberish. The reader has to 'Save as' and then decode by hand.
Which is guaranteed to make the less patient give up.

splitting large uuencoded binaries by hand is while a "trivial" task, easy to
foul up.

Sections must be kept below 10k lines each.

The binary must be converted to ascii only. UUencode is the norm.

And what about the Content-type:, Content-Transfer-Encoding: mime
headers and required attributes? There's a lot more going on under the
hood of a binary post than just making a string of silly characters.

the only important header is the subject line, MIME does not support
file-splitting and so cannot be used to transmit large files.

(you could split the file first (eg: using rar) and then require the
recipient to reassemble them

Correct. But once split, I'd leave the uuencoding and MIME headers to
Netscape (or other newsreader). That reduces the manual job to one step,
splitting the file.

I hate people who try to hand encode stuff. They make extra work for
people who know what they're doing and totally screw it up for the less
computer literate.

BTW, more often its base64 encoding anyway. I'm not certain what sort of
utilities Windows has to handle uuencoded files.

--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to recent budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has
temporarily been turned off.

On 2008-12-23, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2008-12-21, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

One can zip, uuencode and all that by hand. But you risk making the post
incompatible with other news readers. Or at least a pain in the *ss to
read. I've seen far too many uuencoded binaries done by hand that
present themselves as the body of the post consisting of a few hundred
lines of gibberish. The reader has to 'Save as' and then decode by hand.
Which is guaranteed to make the less patient give up.

splitting large uuencoded binaries by hand is while a "trivial" task, easy to
foul up.

Sections must be kept below 10k lines each.

The binary must be converted to ascii only. UUencode is the norm.

And what about the Content-type:, Content-Transfer-Encoding: mime
headers and required attributes? There's a lot more going on under the
hood of a binary post than just making a string of silly characters.

the only important header is the subject line, MIME does not support
file-splitting and so cannot be used to transmit large files.

(you could split the file first (eg: using rar) and then require the
recipient to reassemble them

Correct. But once split, I'd leave the uuencoding and MIME headers to
Netscape (or other newsreader). That reduces the manual job to one step,
splitting the file.

N+1 steps
fragment the file, create N posts, (or is there one-step way to select a bunch
of files an create a message for each?)

I hate people who try to hand encode stuff. They make extra work for
people who know what they're doing and totally screw it up for the less
computer literate.

BTW, more often its base64 encoding anyway. I'm not certain what sort of
utilities Windows has to handle uuencoded files.

most news client software handles uuencoded files just fine.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:06:28 +0000 Eeyore
wrote in Message id:
:

I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

Winrar. As a plus, it also compresses them. Often, smaller than zip.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:15:34 -0500, the renowned JW
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:06:28 +0000 Eeyore
wrote in Message id:
:

I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

Winrar. As a plus, it also compresses them. Often, smaller than zip.

How about IZArc.org It's free. "Create Multi-Volume Set". Plus it
pretty much replaces all the other programs.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:44:15 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:15:34 -0500, the renowned JW
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:06:28 +0000 Eeyore
wrote in Message id:
:

I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

Winrar. As a plus, it also compresses them. Often, smaller than zip.

How about IZArc.org It's free. "Create Multi-Volume Set". Plus it
pretty much replaces all the other programs.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


It doesn't matter what you use to split up a file, there is STILL a
limit placed on Usenet posts, so the size of the file segments needs to
be smaller than that figure.

Most news clients which include uuencode-decode capacity usually will
also break up a large post at a pre-specified number of lines per
segment.

So with the RIGHT news client (not some LAME POS like Outhouse
UnExpressive), one does not have to do anything to the file at all,
because the news client will break up the post for you.

The reason folks also split up the file is so that if there are any
folks out there that didn't get it all, he only needs to re-post that one
file, not the entire thing.

WinPar is a good one too as it creates recovery data so that folks that
did not get it all can still likely put it together with the EC code.

"Archimedes' Lever" wrote in message


So with the RIGHT news client (not some LAME POS like Outhouse
UnExpressive), one does not have to do anything to the file at all,
because the news client will break up the post for you.

So does OE.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Eeyore wrote:

I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

I'm only using Netscape 4.8 (because I like it before anyone makes sarcy
comments).

Thanks for an amazing amount of suggestions and recommendations.

Maybe over XMAS I'll have the tine to try this stuff out.

Best regards, Graham

p.s. and have a great Xmas and a Happy New Year (we're going to NEED one !).

Bring on the revolution ( and I'm not kidding when Goldmine Sachs Board
members think they're woth $100 million bonuses). Anyone know the meaning of
'detritus' ? In fact they're awarding themselves more in bonuses (for
failure) that the Government gave them as a 'Bail-ouit' !

That's OUR money ! Where do taxes come from ?

Graham

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I have some useful manuals etc that might be of interest but they are
too large to post singly (my news provider rejects them). Around 1 MB or
so.

I'm only using Netscape 4.8 (because I like it before anyone makes sarcy
comments).

Thanks for an amazing amount of suggestions and recommendations.

Maybe over XMAS I'll have the tine to try this stuff out.

Best regards, Graham

p.s. and have a great Xmas and a Happy New Year (we're going to NEED one !).

Bring on the revolution ( and I'm not kidding when Goldmine Sachs Board
members think they're woth $100 million bonuses). Anyone know the meaning of
'detritus' ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122687023712831667.html

Goldman Chiefs Give Up Bonuses

In a closely watched move that may be followed across Wall Street, the
top executives at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have decided to forgo their
2008 bonuses. In doing so, they are giving up potentially tens of
millions of dollars in payouts in a year that reshaped the securities
industry.

Yes, about 7 top executives declined their 100 millions bonuses, leaving anothe
15 million to be distrubuted to other members of staff.

CHECK YOUR SOURCES !


After months of internal debate at Goldman, the seven top executives
at the firm, including Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein, asked
the board's compensation committee to grant them no bonuses. The board
approved the request on Sunday.

In fact they're awarding themselves more in bonuses (for
failure) that the Government gave them as a 'Bail-ouit' !

Who's government, paleface?

The US.


That's OUR money ! Where do taxes come from ?

The same place liberal "spread the wealth" taxes comes from.

MORON. GWB IS NOT A LIBERAL. HE'S ENSURING HIS MATES GET COZY PAY-OFFS.

Bring out the guillotines and the gallows ! I'm not quite sure if politicians
(who made it possible) or bankers should go first but then I don't care.

An entire generations of thieves needs to be eradicated.

Graham