BL> How do I know the EOT is a real one? I sent you a false one
 BL> this morning, perfectly within FTS-1 and FTS4.

 PE> It wasn't within the SOT/EOT spec.

  It wasn't within the unsupported ramblings you call a SOT/EOT spec, 
in common with most messages sent on Fido, but it complied to FTS-0501, 
your latest effort dated June '96. Or do I have to ring you up to find 
out what I am allowed to type in a text window? Perhaps you should add 
that to FTS-0501.

 PE> Using that logic, we are not allowed to propose any new
 PE> kludges, we have to stick with FTS-1 and FTS-4 for the rest of
 PE> our lives. That's not the way it goes.

  Using that logic, we have to comply with *all* FTS technical
specifications. None of these must contradict another. And nowhere in
any FTS document does it specify I must *not* type #1EOT in the text
window. The message I sent you did *not* comply with your SOT/EOT
spec, in common with 99.99% of all messages sent on Fido. What spec
did I break?

  Doing what I did is a valid possibility. Worse, it gives users a way
to send secret messages in a false Tear line (for instance), perfectly
within FTS specs, while at the same time keeping their origin hidden
from those with EOT-aware readers.

  Back to the drawing board, Paul. As I said, your EOT specification
is seriously flawed.

Regards,
Bob
 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---