Re: [ebxml-msg] LZJU90 Compressed Encoding

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

[Resending to archive a message Matt has already referenced.]

Matt,

Is this specifically for SMTP?  I'm wondering about the gzip'd HTTP
option.  I'm not sure how widely deployed that option might be but
wonder if a similar option is available now that many (most?) SMTP
implementations are (supposedly) 8 bit clean.  Must admit I'm not sure
the UTF-8 emails I've received were not base64 encoded on the wire.

I guess this is a bunch of questions: Are you focused on SMTP?  Does
modern SMTP support a compression option that doesn't require base64
encoding?  Is that option widely available?

thanx,
     doug

Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

> On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 11:05  AM, William J. Kammerer wrote:
>
>> Sounds fascinating.  Let us know if you find out more.  But I would
>> think it really isn't necessary anymore considering that ZIP is such a
>> ubiquitous format - a BASE64 encoded ZIPped attachment serves the same
>> purpose, doesn't it?
>
>
> It serves the same purpose, but Base64 adds ~33% to the unencoded file 
> size, plus the added CPU overhead of both decoding and unzipping.  I'm 
> looking for something better.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>