Bijan Parsia <bparsia at email.unc.edu> suggested:
	IMO, not without offering alternative tools.  For example,
	Richard, would an HTTP based submission form that "did the right
	thing" from the rest of the tools point of view be acceptible
	for you?  (Especially if it were integrated into the change
	sorters?)

Heck yes!  Prompted by Bert Freudenberg's suggestion, I've gone out looking,
and have now found 'mpack'.  (Why our site had 'munpack' installed but not
'mpack' is a mystery I expect I shall never fathom, but since I use munpack
fairly often I thought I'd remember mpack better than the other command names.
In fact I had checked to see if we had it, and finding that we didn't, had
concluded that it didn't exist.)

So that's the problem now solved for me, and I'll re-mail my things AGAIN
next week (not today, or I'll won't get _anything_ done).

But it's only solved for me.

Such a form would solve the problem for _everyone_ who has it.

Of course, there might not _be_ anyone else who has it.  There can't
be all that many people using Squeak on two different architectures
but with a third (64-bit) architecture as their mail machine, who
are also long-standing readers of comp.risks.

	The mail to list feature improved the uniformity of submissions
	dramatically, so I suspect we can do better by toolish
	enticement than even social enforcement.

First thing I tried was 'mail to list'.
Had there been 'submit via HTML' on the same method,
that would have been the second thing I tried.