BL> To: 3:711/934.24

 FM> Hi, Bob. Did you realise that the above was there? Did you
 FM> intend to send this to me netmail? Or are you now putting the
 FM> recipient's address in the top line instead of inserting a
 FM> blank? Makes it more interesting I suppose.

  It was meant to be netmail... (grin). I started off writing my own
qwk2pkt in Pascal to eliminate these stuffups, but I became fascinated
by Pascal even when I had it working.

 BL> ROFL! Just criticise SOT/EOT; Paul goes right off. I think he
 BL> probably realises by now that it is useless and logically
 BL> flawed, but he's *published*!

 FM> I don't think it's useless, for reasons which are in other
 FM> messages.

  It's worse than useless. It allows ordinary users to stuff those
with SOT/EOT readers. All you have to do is add a false EOT: in your
message, and those with SOT/EOT reraders won't see anything past it.
Paul's reader will sayu: "O yes! That's the end of text," and truncate
the message. 

 BL> Paul was foolish enough to tell me that he could not be
 BL> insulted, so I'm perfecting the art.

 FM> Yeah, but what I'd really like is an intelligent discussion
 FM> about SOT/EOT, and PKTs in general.

  So would I, but you're the only other one who will look at it
sanely. You and I have reached identical conclusions... how come Paul
won't even look? All he gives me is lunacy about the T-29 he thinks is
a bad TV set. What's that got to do with SOT/EOT for Christ's sake?

Regards,
Bob


  
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---