On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 12:00 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Friday 17 December 2004 10:44 pm, Enrico Zini wrote: > > > I've been reported that Outlook on Windows is more efficient in > > storing mails with attachments, as it stores them in unencoded 8-bit > > format while the various Unix tools[1] store them as they've been > > received, so a big attachment would be stored mime-encoded taking 1/3 > > more disk size. > > Are you sure? The odds of Microsoft getting something down to the point > of being more efficient than the competition happens roughly as often If, as the OP says, attachments are stored in .PST files as 8-bit binary files, as opposed to the 7-bit-clean base64 and UU that everyone else uses, then yes, in this case, MSFT stores attachments more efficient than "everyone else". I say, though, "so what?" That's a non-sacrifice I'm willing to make. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Alles touristen und non-technischen looken peepers! Das machinkontrol is nicht for gefengerpoken und mittengrabben. Oderwise is easy schnappen der springenverk, blowenfus, undpoppencorken mit spitzensparken. Der machine is diggen by experten only. Is nicht fur geverken by das dumpkopfen. Das rubber necken sightseenen keepen das cotton-picken hands in das pockets. So relaxen, und vatchen das blinkenlights.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part