From: admin@nospicedham.127.0.0.1   
      
   On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:47:33 +0100, wolfgang kern  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > 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!   
      
   OK; thanks for playing!   
      
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed, Humbug   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)