db> What about a test - if the "area" after "AREA:"
db> is not a known valid area name, then assume it's
db> normal message text and therefore a netmail message.

PE> And if it was netmail from a user via Sydney PCUG, then
PE> it suddenly has the potential to get into ZONE3_SYSOP,
PE> something the user otherwise didn't have access to.

RS> You've just done a massive foot shot on this one.
RS> You claim that BBSs guarantee that users cant fuck
RS> up like that, by protecting themselves from the users.

PE> That is correct.  They can protect against ALL kludge
PE> lines, by simply not allowing the user to enter x'01'.

Pity that they dont universally do that tho. Whatever you claim.
Pity that your raving on about entering messages on line is so
completely and utterly irrelevant now when almost no one does.

PE> However, protecting against kludge lines that don't
PE> start with x'01' is a problem.  They either don't protect
PE> against it, or they have to destroy normal ASCII text.

Yes, pity you claimed that BBSs rigorously protect against the users
doing something stupid and in fact they do nothing of the sort. Yes,
they CAN do that, pity they often dont tho. So your claim that there is
something unique about what users have to be careful of with other than
a BBS to ensure their messages are 'in spec' has blown up in your face.

The real world is nothing like as black and white as you claim.

PE> That's part of the problem that SOT/EOT was designed to solve.

Says nothing useful about your footshot that you studiously ignore tho.
@EOT:

---