BL>   My point here, was that an unidentifiable message is safer than an
BL> identifiable one. There is no need to identify SOT, just so long as
BL> *somehting* is there. In that case, it is better not to identify it.
BL> The absolute minimum is a blank line, next best is a line with just #1
BL> in it. The four bytes "SOT:" have no function.

You can't have a blank line, as that would not be a control line.
The minimum you could have is ^aS:  You need a ":" and a keyword,
you can't just have a ^a by itself.  Ref FTS-1.

BL>   Next, but not strictly essential, is the Origin line that gives
BL> the return address (for points). The basic address is in the message
BL> header, and the sysop will know his own points, so you dont *really*
BL> need the Origin.

Poor old Bob.  Doesn't even know what the fixed header address
has in it.  Hint, it's not 711/934 when the echomail message
*you* wrote in this echo is going from Bill Grimsley to David
Drummond.  Both origin and destination are 640/305.

BL> 6.  Find end of Origin line and define message END there.

Depends what you call "message end".  If you want to define the
end of the user-text, you've missed.

BL>   I understand Paul's reasoning, and there *is* a need for a way to
BL> define the end of text in a message, but it's too late to add it now.

No it isn't.

BL> The only thing that would work is something that mail won't work
BL> without... disallow multiple SEN-BY lines or add #1 to each SEN-BY. 

No need for that.  You can do it in an upwardly-compatible manner.
Tell me how the SOT/EOT spec is flawed so that can't use it to
find start and end of user-text.  Good luck.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---