From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: clemc@ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:42:08 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] attachments: MIME and uuencode In-Reply-To: <71748884-ac1a-d565-aa08-80f9220594ac@mhorton.net> References: <71748884-ac1a-d565-aa08-80f9220594ac@mhorton.net> Message-ID: I think it might actually predates 6/1/80 by 6-9 months because I was at Tek a year earlier and you and I started corresponding that first summer I was at Tek. I remember that you had sent me a copy of it shortly after you wrote it. So I think there is a chance that that might be a slightly later version. Clem On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Mary Ann Horton wrote: > I just heard from a historian named Piotr Klaban with an interesting > historical sidelight. > > Apparently today 3/11/17 is being publicized as the 25th anniversary of > the email attachment, citing Nat Borenstein's MIME. Piotr points out that > uuencode predates MIME, and he's right. > > I checked and, while I don't have any email archives from that time frame > at Berkeley, I was able to find the 4BSD archive on minnie that dates the > uuencode.1c man page at 6/1/80. We didn't call them attachments back then, > just sending binary files by email. (Prior to then it was common to just > include the text of the file raw in the email, which only worked for ASCII > files.) It was a few years later when cc:Mail and Microsoft Mail started > calling uuencoded files embedded in email "attachments". > > When MIME came out in 1992 I became a champion of SMTP/MIME as a standard > - it was a big improvement. But uuencod predated MIME by 12 years. > > Mary Ann > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: