Date:         Mon, 27 May 1996 20:22:38 -0400
Reply-To:     Tom Abernathy <tga1@COLUMBIA.EDU>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:         Tom Abernathy <tga1@COLUMBIA.EDU>
Organization: Columbia University
Subject:      Re: Andy and Werner Were Right--I Was Wrong--Probably
In-Reply-To:  <vines.vq39+X9Jela@go01.comp.pge.com>

On Sun, 26 May 1996 TWB2%Rates%FAR@GO50.COMP.PGE.COM wrote:
> Regarding the "WinWord attachments," John W. forwarded me the original
> messages.  They arrived the same way they did originally: with no
introduction
> followed by garbage (once I saw them, I remembered deleting them).  John
> assures me they are uudecodable at his site.  This time, I tried two
> uudecoders and a MIME reader, and got nothing but errors everytime.  It seems
> likely that these messages arrived at some sites as WinWord attachments, at
> some sites as uuencoded ASCII, and at some sites as garbage.  I still hope to
This is now one of my current pet peeves so I waste everybodies time
talking about it.
 
The use of e-mail to send non-text attachments.
 
In particular non-text attachments that are really just text wrapped up in
somebodies favorite software products propriatary format.
 
The best one I got was a 300K document attached to CC:MAIL at the office
that turned out to be seven lines of text done as a PowerPoint
presentation. I had to load the thing to disk. Start Powerpoint. Look at
the thing. Plus it was sent to a couple of hundred people who had to
do the same thing.
 
 
 
- Tom Abernathy (tga1@columbia.edu)