BL> It's worse than useless. It allows ordinary users to stuff
 BL> those with SOT/EOT readers. All you have to do is add a false
 BL> EOT: in your message, and those with SOT/EOT reraders won't see
 BL> anything past it. Paul's reader will sayu: "O yes! That's the
 BL> end of text," and truncate the message. 

 KR> did you ever think though bob, that the world ain't all
 KR> readers. the software that actually moves the messages around
 KR> would be a lot simpler if sot/eot was mandatary.

  I agree totally. But it isn't mandatory, is it? At best, we will
have a mixed system of readers and mailers not sot/eot aware. Even
better, make the Tear line mandatory, or Origin line.

 KR> since that isn't really likely at this stage of fido's
 KR> existance, it should also be noted that that software would
 KR> handle any sot/eot messages in the normal message stream faster
 KR> by simply ignoring anything between sot and eot. 

  How? It has to find EOT, and by then it's too late... it's already
scanned the entire message to find it! Nice theory, though...

  The only way to do that is to define the length of the message in
the header like QWK does... *then* you can skip to the end.

  It would be quite easy to go through FTS-1/4 and fix it. It was
written when ascii was all anyone wanted to send, but it's ended up
with a packet header that's too big, a message header that's too
small, a mixed text window of #1 and ascii control lines, and no
specification to say what may or may not be sent.

  Paul's trying to tell me that you have to strip #1-lines from
user text, and "SEENBY" lines, and what...? There is no spec for this
at all.

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

---