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

 PE> You can't have a blank line, as that would not be a control
 PE> line.

  That's my whole point. You don't need a control line, just a blank.
It *isn't* a control line, even if it has #1 as its only character.

 PE> The minimum you could have is ^aS: You need a ":" and a
 PE> keyword, you can't just have a ^a by itself. Ref FTS-1.

  Who said it was a control line? It does not meet the control line
specification of #1 followed by unique keyword so it isn't a control
line. Don't you know how to read a specification? Where does it say
anything about a colon? FMPT does not have a colon.

 BL> The basic address is in the message header, and the sysop will
 BL> know his own points, so you dont *really* need the Origin.

 PE> Poor old Bob. Doesn't even know what the fixed header address
 PE> has in it.

  I was talking about the message header, dicko. That's why I used the
words: "message header".

 PE> Hint, it's not 711/934 when the echomail message *you* wrote in
 PE> this echo is going from Bill Grimsley to David Drummond. Both
 PE> origin and destination are 640/305.

  Hint: Are you sure you know how it works? The message header is the
14-bytes at the top of each message (with no room for point number).
When I reply, it goes all the way back the way it came, using the
address in the message header, and when it gets to the other end it
has the correct address (except for the point number). As I said, the
home system will knows its own points, so you don't *really* need the
Origin line.

  The only time you need to read the Origin line is if you want to
reply directly to a point's email. Otherwise, you reply to his home
system and rely on that to pass it on. You don't *really* need the
Origin line.

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

  It isn't there in 99.99% of messages. Now try and use it.

  But that's not the worst part. You didn't realise that in a mixed
system of eot-aware readers and no-eot-readers, the eot-aware readers
can damage compliant messages with a false eot in them.

Regards,
Bob



___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---