Herb Peyerl wrote:
> Lets not forget that there are quite a number of binary files 
> and other binary objects in tarballs, some of which might contain
> the sequence "0x0d0a" but where those occurences are not intended
> to represent a carriage return or linefeed in a piece of text.
> 
> I would say the originator has well and truly hosed himself.

I don't think so.

If the original conversion was stupid enough to replace all those
0x0a with 0x0d0a (wich means 0x0d0a becomes 0x0d0d0a) then you can
reverse it just fine.

Tom