Re: [Pan-users] Re: ANNOUNCE: pan-attach and pan-attach-kd, version 0.0.2006.10.07.0

[Dave]

On Sunday 08 October 2006 11:28, Duncan wrote:
> Dave <address@hidden> posted
> address@hidden, excerpted below, on  Sun, 08 Oct 2006
>
> 01:15:12 +0100:
> > Excellent!
> >
> > Just tried it with an attachment in uu and yenc format and both worked
> > just fine after editing and moving my sig.
>
> yenc?  I take it you are still using pan 0.14?

Yes.  I gave new Pan a go a while back and messed up the compile/install.  To 
date "old" Pan does what I need anyway so I've not re-attempted installing 
new Pan.  I Might have another go when it's "release" or maybe tajke the easy 
way out and wait for the FreeBSD port ;-)

> > Is there a way to insert the encoded file before the sig?  Pan refuses
> > to post the article stating the sig is waaaaay to0 big.  No real problem
> > though.
>
> It /should/ be a (GNKSA) warning, not an error.  IOW, it should warn you,
> but then let you go ahead.  At least it does in new-pan, and I never had
> any trouble even with multiple attachments (I tried up to three but they
> were moderate size jpegs) in old-pan (that was with pan-attach, but that
> shouldn't matter for this). It warned, but there was a continue
> anyway button, and since I knew what the problem was and that it wasn't
> really the sig, I just hit that.

Just re-checked.

If don't add text in the message body I get:
ERROR: Message is empty
WARNING: Signature is more than four lines long
ERROR: Message appears to have no new content.

Not your fault or Charles' fault.  My fault for not reading it properly

> As for putting it elsewhere in the file, it would be possible, but more
> difficult and therefore more prone to bugs.

It's no real biggy, more of an observation.  A couple of keypresses fixes 
it :-)

>
> > I'm happy that it works :-)
>
> So am I, both for posting on my own, and more so that my hard work is
> found useful by others. =8^)  I don't do C/C++, so it's a pretty special
> thing when something I /can/ do actually fills a functionality hole, not
> only for me, but for other people as well.  =8^)

A warm cuddy feeling :-)

> Second, one can do what they do in the ISO groups all the time -- manually
> split the file up as necessary (on *ix, the "split" command can be used),
> then post the pieces. Of course, in the ISO groups, they may split a 700
> meg ISO into 14 50 meg pieces, then post each of those with the client
> further splitting them. Here, we're talking about splitting maybe a 7 meg
> into 14 pieces, and posting the 500 k pieces as single parts.  Same idea
> tho, just not using as complex a tools so more must be done manually.

I have a script to do that but it's one of those that needs editing for each 
use.  Maybe if I get time I can do something with it but since I don't often 
post large binaries there's been little incentive for me to improve it much.


-- 
Dave