yENC Files

as should be clear to you by doing a search on yenc in this forum, i am not
the only clown asking where the glaringly absent yenc support is. [and
unbunch your panties: again, this is not a protocol debate over the technical
merits of yenc. while i have read those articles, and find them very
interesting, it doesnt pertain to this. end users should *never* be punished
for such things. we should be appeased. that is the market. if you think this
is whining, go back to the ussr. me, i will continue to voice requests to
software developers....]

as for your poor rebutal to my working graphics app analogy, yenc is not
some obscure image format. in fact, im only aware of two types of encoding
schemes in bin groups: mime, and yenc. can you guess which is more prevelent?
you got it cookie, yenc. thanks for playing.

actually, i dont feel im being berated. maybe your online-ego needs to feel
like youre delivering a good ol' southern ass whooping...but sadly, you
arent. i post inbetween having a life, because ive got a few minutes to kill.
so it really doesnt bother me. see you some time tomorrow (after work, the
gym, the beach, and maybe some cocktails).


matt



It does meet the needs of its users. News flash: YOU are not its only
user. If OE didn't meet the needs of its users then its users wouldn't
be using it. DUH! Oh, and there are graphic programs that do NOT
support every graphics file format that has ever existed on this planet.
And guess what those users had to do? Use another product to support
that other graphics format. DUH!

You are getting berated because all you've done so far is whine and
complain about a product that doesn't support something YOU want in the
product. I use multiple newsreaders depending on what function I want
from each. OE is lousy as an offline reader and I'd rather use Newrover
for that. I may replace OE with Xnews to get far superior regular
expressions and the ability to search in ANY header and also let you
define which headers are displayed in the preview pane so, for example,
you can get alerted when some clown uses FollowUp-To in an attempt to
redirect your reply to some other newsgroup than where you intended to
post. Some folks use Newsbin because they only want to strip out all
the files attached in some binary newsgroup (it's been about 3, or more
years since I looked at Newsbin and decided binaries weren't where I
wanted to spend my time, so there might be better automatic scanning and
file extracting newsreaders out there by now). Instead of using OE to
waste time to read a music group trying to find songs or a group like
alt.comp.graphics to yank images, they use Newsbin or a similarly
functioned newsreader to yank all the posts with attachments to yank and
save all that match whatever filetype(s) they want.

Get a newsreader that satisfies your needs. You have LOTS of choices.
When Microsoft perceives a *significant* number of users want yEnc, and
when yEnc actually has a stable encoding definition which is no longer
non-compliant with other Usenet standards (like trying to use the
unstructured Subject header as a structured header to encode the encoded
section within the body), then you'll see Microsoft bothering with it.
I forget which one it was, but one newsreader author got so ****ed at
the yEnc author continually tweaking and changing the encoding scheme
that they dumped support for yEnc.

"matt del vecchio" wrote in
message ...
like i said elsewhere in this thread....pasted for your convienence:


Besides, they don't make one penny off OE.

gee, for an MS-MVP you dont seem very bright. do they make a "penny"
off IE?

Wow, when did I win the nomination for MS-MVP? Gee, I didn't even know
that I was nominated.

If you were thinking that I was promoting Microsoft products, boy, were
you off base. I'm still trialing and re-trialing several alternative
NNTP clients because I want something better than OE (because it is a
long stale product).

"matt del vecchio" wrote in
message ...
as should be clear to you by doing a search on yenc in this forum, i
am not
the only clown asking where the glaringly absent yenc support is.

If the number of users requesting Microsoft to add yEnc were a
significant number (to Microsoft's bottom line) then it would be there.
It isn't there because the demand is way too low to bother. You might
be in a stadium packed with 500,000 users clamoring for yEnc support.
Still too small for Microsoft to bother with it, especially since it
isn't defined by any recognized standards committee and for a product
that generates no revenue. Now if Outlook supported NNTP and
Microsoft's corporate customers were clamoring for yEnc support then
Microsoft would care because they do generate revenue from Outlook.

end users should *never* be punished
for such things. we should be appeased. that is the market.

There is a "market" for Outlook Express? Can't imagine what that would
be. A market means consumers can apply pressure and influence on a
producer by migrating to other products and causing that producer to
lose revenue. They want to maintain market share to maintain revenue.
Pretty hard to maintain revenue on a product that is free and represents
only a drain on development resources and a loss on their annual report.

So just how are you going to apply pressure against Microsoft by asking
for support of a non-standard encoding scheme by threatening to no
longer use their FREE program? You think leaving any FREE product
really effects a monetary loss to the author of that free product? The
tongue-in-cheek response is often, "Well, you could ask for your money
back."

as for your poor rebutal to my working graphics app analogy, yenc is
not
some obscure image format. in fact, im only aware of two types of
encoding
schemes in bin groups: mime, and yenc. can you guess which is more
prevelent?
you got it cookie, yenc. thanks for playing.

When my buddy at work that has to suffer in maintaining the company's
NNTP server decided to monitor which groups had the most yEnc
attachments, well, you already know the answer to that one. He then
deleted and blocked all those non-work related and questionable content
groups to got back a huge amount of disk space. Yes, yEnc does get used
in other groups. However, Usenet is hardly meant to be a reliable file
tranfer medium, and yEnc just adds further to that unreliability.

I figure there's no real point in us arguing over what Microsoft should
or should not do. What matters is what Microsoft is likely to do, and
adding yEnc has never received much, if any, attention at Microsoft. A
search at http://search.microsoft.com on "yenc" turns up no matches, so
Microsoft hasn't even bothered to address the issue that they don't
support that encoding scheme. You could send then feedback using their
web form but you already know the result of that. Unless it affects
their revenue, you'll get what Microsoft wants to give you should you
continue to use Microsoft products. Since OE is free, you'll have a
hard time trying to move Microsoft to support yEnc in OE. How long has
OE-Quotefix been around? And yet Microsoft hasn't bothered wasting
resources on their freebie product to accomodate those bugs that
OE-Quotefix addresses. OE-Quotefix hasn't been updated in over 2 years
so the known bugs in OE are old and still not fixed. Other than
blocking linked images and a couple registry hacks to make it
bottom-post, OE has changed very little over a very long time which is a
good indicator that it is a dead product or receives almost no attention
or resources for development. It's a staid product. You're beating a
dead horse. Get another horse.

Of course, should Microsoft suddenly provide a new and much improved
version of OE and actually starts charging for it then yEnc enthusiasts
can apply pressure to get yEnc supported in OE - but then a lot of users
will abandon OE because it won't be free anymore and again there won't
be any pressure of consequence for Microsoft to incorporate yEnc. It
hasn't happened. It's not gonna happen, either, unless some miracle of
miracles has yEnc show up in Outlook so Microsoft decides to include the
same code back in OE.

--
__________________________________________________ __________
Post your replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
E-mail reply: Remove "NIXTHIS" and add "#VS811" to Subject.
__________________________________________________ __________

like i said.... OE is free, IE is free. does MS care about their marketshare
w/ their "free" products? yes. because it means: 1) competitors arent making
money, 2) freebie users are more likely to purchase non-free products.

lets spell it out.... OE users = potential O users.

as should be clear to you, in general MS *wants* to provide the
end-all-be-all-solution application. this is their m.o. this is why theres
been a POS media player bundled into an *operating system* for five years.
was it free? yes. was it needed? no. why did they do it? 1) to stop Real from
making money. 2) then, even tho they probably didnt know exactly how, they
figured there was a revenue stream. they figured it out by bundling record
info & sales, music shopping, etc, into it.

didnt know this was so difficult a concept.

man...sorry dude, but you are DENSE.

which part of, "like i said elsewhere" and then "...pasted for your
convienence" did you not get?

as the quoted line from another poster (not me, and not you) should have
hammered in.. that was a pasted chunk of what i said to another fellow (the
mvp) who asked the same question as you.

this thread is pretty much dead. and boring. believe what you will.


matt

When my buddy at work that has to suffer in maintaining the company's
NNTP server decided to monitor which groups had the most yEnc
attachments, well, you already know the answer to that one. He then

also... yes, yEnc is most popular w/ files of a large size, which is often
porn. you seem to think that discredits it somehow, or that porn consumers
are not entitled to better applications. this is confusing. explain?

while porn is not appropiate for work viewing, i would bet most yEnc users
are not doing so in the office. its an at-home application. surely you know
that.

and MS could really care less what you do w/ its clients. thats like
suggesting MS would decide to stop supporting IE because studies found it was
used mostly for porn (im making this up) -- its ridiculous. *they dont care*.
nor should they.


matt

"matt del vecchio" wrote in
message ...

this thread is pretty much dead. and boring. believe what you will.

Does this mean that we will now lose your gentlemanly insight, matt?
Awwwwwwww.
What is yENK anyway? Hands up those who care.

Does this mean that we will now lose your gentlemanly insight, matt?

sorry, being a gentleman to you chumps isnt high on my list of priorites.


What is yENK anyway? Hands up those who care.

evidently you do enough to waste your time replying.

"matt del vecchio" wrote in
message ...
When my buddy at work that has to suffer in maintaining the company's
NNTP server decided to monitor which groups had the most yEnc
attachments, well, you already know the answer to that one. He then

also... yes, yEnc is most popular w/ files of a large size, which is
often
porn. you seem to think that discredits it somehow, or that porn
consumers
are not entitled to better applications. this is confusing. explain?

while porn is not appropiate for work viewing, i would bet most yEnc
users
are not doing so in the office. its an at-home application. surely you
know
that.

and MS could really care less what you do w/ its clients. thats like
suggesting MS would decide to stop supporting IE because studies found
it was
used mostly for porn (im making this up) -- its ridiculous. *they dont
care*.
nor should they.


Apparently Microsoft doesn't share your marketing expertise regarding
your "should add yEnc because it might generate revenue (although the
corporate market will block yEnc and the consumer market won't pay when
it's already free)" economics model.

Microsoft won't lose any of their *corporate* market share due the lack
of yEnc. Businesses don't want or need yEnc support. They would
instead attempt to block those sources (i.e., porn) that prevently
employ yEnc. They don't want their employees wasting time on porn or
wasting the company's resources with it. I've yet to see an employee
receive a bonus for downloading porn onto a company's desktop. Adding
yEnc support just means something else that businesses will have to
block, so they won't see it as something they want. Which corporate
users of Outlook have you seen requesting Microsoft to add yEnc?

Sales in the consumer market share for Outlook is far smaller,
especially because home users will continue to use or seek out cheaper
or free alternatives. Few users will switch from free Outlook Express
(or some other free e-mail client) so they get the "privilege" of paying
over $100 just to get Outlook only to have nearly the same e-mail
functionality. I've been visiting the Outlook newsgroups for years and
have yet to see someone move from OE to Outlook at their own personal
expense because they needed only the same e-mail features of Outlook.
Yes, Outlook does have a better rules set but are you going to pay $100
for that or instead use other freebie solutions to filter your e-mails?
When an OE user migrates to Outlook, it is because they want the OTHER
features of Outlook that are missing from Outlook Express, like Journal,
Calendar, Notes, archiving, and integration with Word to provide more
rich content but none of those other functions benefit by adding support
for yEnc.

yEnc won't provide any revenue by adding it to a free product, like OE.
yEnc support isn't viewed as significant in generating future revenue
from some tiny increase of Outlook sales from consumers migrating from
the freebie Outlook Express product. You purport that Microsoft can
generate financial benefit from some claimed significant potential
demand by users that will migrate from OE to Outlook, pay over $100 for
that migration, who are migrating to only get the same e-mail
functionality that they already have, and that those users won't be in
an environment that will block the content where yEnc is prevalently
employed. Outlook is marketed at corporate users and I see no want
there for yEnc. Outlook can generate revenue. Outlook Express is
targeted at home or personal users but because it is a free product then
its users have no means of financially pressuring Microsoft to include
any feature regardless of the level of demand. Outlook users who
already are lacking yEnc support aren't going to abandon the product
simply because Outlook Express also does not include yEnc support. Your
view of economics is definitely, um, unique.

The solution(s) for providing yEnc support already exist but in other
NNTP clients, some of which you have to pay for or they have a paid
version and which targets the same market so they do have an ulterior
motive for including yEnc in their free and paid versions. The solution
already exists for adding yEnc to Outlook Express by a 3rd party (using
the yEnc proxy) but you have chosen not to use it. yEnc is not
something Microsoft can be pressured into including and there are very
good reasons for NOT including yEnc support. Microsoft is far more
concerned with the needs of their corporate customers that pay them
money then a bunch of freeloading home/personal users. You have
actually seen an article stating that the Fortune 500 companies are
clamoring for yEnc support in any of the e-mail or NNTP clients that
they use? The potential revenue generated by freebie OE users migrating
and paying to go to Outlook would probably disappear simply from the
rounding of the numbers in their annual report.

Your claim that there is some huge potential market of users using OE
for free that will pay to switch to Outlook simply because yEnc support
got added is nonsensical. But sometimes companys make stupid decisions
regarding their products and you might get lucky. Until the corporate
market clamors for yEnc support, Microsoft will reap no financial
rewards by adding it. There is also the possibility that Microsoft adds
yEnc to placate their users, but I doubt that happens until yEnc.org
actually even bothers to submit their draft to the IETF.

"matt del vecchio" wrote in
message ...

evidently you do enough to waste your time replying.

:-))

Have you tried http://www.fidolook.org/ ?