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.

BL>   It wasn't within the unsupported ramblings you call a SOT/EOT spec, 
BL> in common with most messages sent on Fido, 

The "most messages" do not break the SOT/EOT spec.  Yours did.

BL> but it complied to FTS-0501, 
BL> your latest effort dated June '96. Or do I have to ring you up to find 
BL> out what I am allowed to type in a text window? Perhaps you should add 
BL> that to FTS-0501.

Yes, you can't type 0x01 in a text window.  Any line that starts
with 0x01 is not user-text, it is a kludge line, and must meet the
requirements of FTS-1, and if you have a proposal for a new kludge
line, you are meant to document that.  And it is not acceptible to
attempt to take over someone else's.

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.

BL>   Using that logic, we have to comply with *all* FTS technical
BL> specifications. 

No, only when you choose to use a keyword defined by one of them.
Poor old Bob, you call yourself an engineer and you don't even
understand that?

BL> None of these must contradict another. 

Where have two people introduced a kludge line by the same name?

BL> And nowhere in
BL> any FTS document does it specify I must *not* type #1EOT in the text
BL> window. 

It DOES say that that becomes a kludge line.

BL> The message I sent you did *not* comply with your SOT/EOT
BL> spec, in common with 99.99% of all messages sent on Fido. What spec
BL> did I break?

You broke the SOT/EOT spec, UNLIKE 99.99% of all messages sent on
Fido.  IF you choose to generate SOT/EOT you must conform to the
spec.  That is not written in black and white in the FTSC specs,
although it is of course common practice.  It IS written in black
and white in the FTSCD specs.

BL>   Doing what I did is a valid possibility. 

Bob, going echo "Hello there" > 0000000C.PKT is a valid possibility.
Big whoop, that's your responsibility.

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

Bob, it's your responsibility to send messages within the spec you
are using, and failure to do so means you are responsible for all
problems caused.  Sheesh, I am beginning to understand why everyone
else doesn't allow points, forces them all to use backward BBS
technology.  Because they can't be trusted to get their software in
order.

I'll have to devise a system to check point's software properly,
and delete non-conforming stuff.

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

Bob, you don't have a clue in the world.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---