BL> Don't be silly. A blank would mean Netmail, so you remove it
 BL> the same as you remove SOT. It's a problem of identification.

 PE> If you were starting the standard from scratch, yes you could
 PE> define that. You can't anymore.

  I will depend on how you process the first line. If you look for #1
and find a blank you would be entitled to think it was text and miss
the control lines, but the way FTS-1 is written, you could expect to
find a blank line between control lines anyway.

 BL> I can add a false EOT just as easily 

 PE> God you're a dork. You CAN'T add a false EOT. Log on to Sydney
 PE> PCUG and see if you can add an EOT. Good luck.

 BL> I sent you one this morning in the message to Brenton...

 PE> I said a normal user, not a point

  I know what you said; it's the same technique Rod uses to avoid the
question: start with an insult, answer something different and hope no
one notices. In fact, a point can't send false Netmail by typing AREA
on the first line... his first line will always be #1FMPT or a blank.

  There are two separate issues: SOT which I don't object to, except
pedantically when the extra letters in #1SOT convey no information,
and #1EOT which I say is a positive menace.

  The problem with EOT is non-SOT/EOT readers which do not add SOT/EOT
but allow the user to type #1EOT anywhere he likes. The message is
perfectly FTS compliant, but the EOT-aware reader will remove the Tear
line and the Origin line (as well as the EOT line). EOT can mangle a 
compliant message. This is worse than a noncompliant message with no 
Origin to begin with. The EOT-aware reader is causing the problem; not
the sender.

Regards,
Bob


___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---