From: nowhere@never.at   
      
   Kerr Mudd-John wrote:   
      
   >> If we allow more printable characters in the first two rows which   
   >> arent Base64 encoded anyway, I can think of shorter solutions.   
      
   > Sure; Terje already used sub (*)directly; I decided that if it was to be a   
   > base64 encoded stream being sent then I would try for a pure B64 character   
   > set.   
      
   But if I'd receive a Base64 string I'd probably try to decode it as   
   Base64 from the very start (or even let my OE do it).   
      
   > But you're welcome to use whatever you like!   
      
   yes, it will save some bytes with more characters !"#$%^&()*-<>:;'"?~.   
   Terje asked for another 2:1 variant but I cant find any shorter.   
      
   And because I cannot beat the size of your 4:3 decoder nor your   
   tricky dh xor's, and as some serious work became due yet, I give   
   up on further attempts. It was a funny game!   
   __   
   wolfgang   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)