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'.

RS> Pity that they dont universally do that tho. Whatever you claim.
RS> Pity that your raving on about entering messages on line is so
RS> 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.

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

PE> The quote is still above, where I said they
PE> "can", not that every single bit of software does.

Thats not the only time you have commented on that issue. You were running
the line that 'users' of BBSs couldnt stuff up the system because the BBS
ensured that they couldnt do stupid stuff like include what the system would
think of as a kludge line etc. So points had to be utterly different when
those protections were not present. The real world is NOTHING like that
black and white, particularly now almost no one actually enters mail online.

PE> I'd like to know what online BBS software
PE> allows x'01' to be entered though.

Pity 'online' is so completely and utterly irrelevant today tho. THATS
the real world. In fact, today its just about only the sysop who ever
enters mail online, NOT the users. And plenty of even sysops OLR too.
@EOT:

---