Will Parsons wrote: > 4) If using the uuencode method for attachments is not (or no longer?) > desired, is there a preferred alternative? (And please don't suggest > using Thunderbird.)
When posting your cygcheck output, you're asking for help from others and giving them some details that they can look at in order to better help you. If you make it hard or cumbersome for them to look at it, chances are they won't. I know I certainly would not take the time to manually copy and paste and uudecode somebody's cygcheck output, whereas it's trivial for me to look at an attachment. It's just like on busy patches lists where if you send a patch gzipped or with a content-type that's not plain text, people will tend to not review the patch because it takes extra annoying steps to view the file. So if you want to use uuencode that's fine as far as I'm concerned, as long as you are willing to accept that your question will more than likely get less exposure, given that the majority of people that would be inspecting cygcheck output are subscribed to the list and read it in its native email format. As a compromise, you could put the cygcheck output on a pastebin-like site and provide a URL. Brian -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
