BL> What out-of-spec message? Which FTS spec did I break?

PE> You didn't. You violated the only FSC spec that defines SOT/EOT.

BL> Are you saying that #1 EOT may not be typed in a message?

PE> DEAD RIGHT.

Thats a distinctly dubious proposition actually for one of
those in the body of user text. That is NOT the same as reusing
a kludge keyword that has been defined in a proposal, any more
than an embedded tearline is or an embedded origin line either.

BL> I am not making any proposals. I'm not trying to use your
BL> EOT keyword. I'm just typing #1EOT as part of normal text
BL> in a message, using a mailer which does not add SOT/EOT.

PE> You CANNOT use 0x01 in your messages.

Soorree, no FTS mandates that.

BL> This is exactly the same as typing AREA: as the first line in a

PE> It is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.  The former is control characters, in the
PE> domain of software.  The latter is ASCII text, in the domain of the user.

Soorree, no FTS mandates that either. And there
are in fact control chars in user text anyway.

BL> If I typed "MSGID" is normal text, a msgig-aware reader would
BL> read the first one outside text and ignore the false one in text.

PE> And if the software isn't generating a MSGID, making yours the
PE> only one?  No, the MSGID spec is not faulty.  YOU are faulty.

Soorree, if its user text, you cant even claim that the FTS is breached.
@EOT:

---