Re: The lost key

On 29/03/2025 23:46, Mini Mailer wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 29/03/2025 22:43, Mini Mailer wrote:

SCOS is not well thought out. It should use the base64
alphabet

>
It does. It just doesn't confine itself to that alphabet.
>

and allow binary encoding as well.

>
Your comment is not well thought out. You should have stopped to think
about what SCOS is /for/. Complaining about lack of support for binary
encoding is like complaining that your car can't drive on rivers.

 Well, a beautiful base64 output, with 64 chars per line, is a nice feature
and does not look so ugly, like your versions output and binary support is
a welcome addition.

No, in a text medium like Usenet it would be an /un/welcome addition.

Why, you may ask? Because it can replace a standard
base64 encoder and allows to use key values from 0-63, so that third parties
do not know it is a SCOS message or a Standard base64 encoded message. :-)

You are confusing 'can' with 'should'. SCOS isn't what you want it to be. What you want is trivial to implement, and there is nothing to stop you from implementing it yourself, but what you are asking for is not what SCOS is for.
There is no reason to replace base64(1), which is already doing a fine job of handling base64 conversions.
You can already use key values from 0-63 if you wish, but you are not limited to those values.
There is no need to conceal SCOS messages from third parties, and to think otherwise suggests that you think SCOS is about communicating in secret... but the OS in SCOS stands for ')))))Open((((( Secret'. It's one-to-many communication, not a tête-à-tête on a party line.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within