Yes, I wondered why they didn't just take the bytes of their HTML, all of them, encode with base64, stuff the result into a MIME Part, send it, and f'get it. T

Yes, I wondered why they didn't just take the bytes of their HTML, all of them, encode with base64, stuff the result into a MIME Part, send it, and f'get it. Then to read the Web page, just decode the base64, give the result to Firefox, and be done -- no syntax or substitutions. A guess is that base64 would be slower, but the base64 logic is dirt simple. So is the data handling -- just stuff the bytes where want them with no worries about splitting long lines and rejoining them, the fairly tricky logic of finding the =2D strings and replacing them. But the syntax changes seem to be quite popular. Part of all of this, to ease data handling I'm hoping for being able to store each Web page in just one file, a one file HTML, especially for whatever I receive via email.