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.

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

The way FTS-1 is written, control lines can appear in the middle
of text, ie even after lines that start "Hi Mom".

The "Hi Mom" and the blank line are both user-text.

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

BL>   I know what you said; it's the same technique Rod uses to avoid the
BL> question: start with an insult, answer something different and hope no

What are you talking about?

BL>   The problem with EOT is non-SOT/EOT readers which do not add SOT/EOT
BL> but allow the user to type #1EOT anywhere he likes. The message is

Normal users cannot enter #1EOT, as I have said, and you STILL
don't understand.

BL> perfectly FTS compliant, but the EOT-aware reader will remove the Tear
BL> line and the Origin line (as well as the EOT line). 

So?

BL> EOT can mangle a 
BL> compliant message. 

What are you talking about?  It doesn't "mangle" it at all.  You
don't alter in-transit mail, but you can do what you like with
your own messagebase.

BL> This is worse than a noncompliant message with no 
BL> Origin to begin with. The EOT-aware reader is causing the problem; not
BL> the sender.

You don't know what you're talking about.  Well I certainly don't
know what you're talking about anyway.  The software is already in
place and working fine.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---