Hi, Paul.

PE> BL>   Have you actually written your reader yet? How do you do it? You
PE> BL> just put EOT ahead of the Tearline... right? So what's EOT doing? If

PE> Bob doesn't even know what a tearline is yet, so you can safely
PE> ignore anything he says on the topic until then.

I think I know what a tearline is, but I don't see why it enters this
discussion. It contains no useful information does it?

PE> BL>   If you want to write a PKT reader and are tempted to add SOT/EOT,
PE> BL> just add a Tearline and Origin line instead.... or sweet nothing at

PE> Yes, if tearline is compulsory, AND a blank line before the tearline
PE> is either mandatory or forbidden (by software automatic-generation),
PE> then yes, there is no need for EOT.  As I said a long, long time ago.

But, OTOH (and this is my point), if you are the originator of a message
you can put that other stuff in, where it belongs, all the time. So for
a message originator there's no need for EOT, and for a subsequent
reader you can't reliably add it. Mostly you will be able to *correctly*
add it, in those cases where you don't need to.

PE> FM> Is it possible, in general, to scan a PKT and work out where to
PE> FM> put SOT/EOT? If not why not, what stuffs you up from doing
PE> FM> that?

PE> BL>   Yes, you can insert your own SOT/EOT.

PE> No, you can't.

I agree, as you'll have seen by now from my long message. Well half
agree anyway. :-)

PE> BL>                             SOT:

PE> BL>   Read the 4 null-terminated strings that make up the header fields,
PE> BL> read the next line. If it is "AREA:" read the
message until you run

PE> Oh dear, getting control information from user-text.  Dear oh dear.
PE> It's people like Bob that created the problem in the first place.  :-(

Yes, in that circumstance you can potentially be trying to extract
control information from what is really user text. It's not likely but
it can and has happened, as in that message you quoted. That justifies
^aSOT, IMHO.

PE> BL> top of a message in Netmail. If you use SOT it may confuse someone's
PE> BL> reader, so just add "#1IllogicalTwit" and it'll do
the same thing
PE> BL> anyway.

PE> ^AILLOGICALTWIT instead of ^ASOT.  Yeah, it all makes perfect
PE> sense now that I've temporarily removed my brain [fx: reinserts
PE> brain].

There needs to be an 0x01 line, specially added in a particular
circumstance. I think I'd rather add ^aSOT rather than ^aILLOGICALTWIT,
in that circumstance where it was needed. :-)

PE> BL> 2.  E-MAIL

PE> BL>   In e-mail, find the end, read backwards to find the first line of
PE> BL> the SEEN-BYs. If not found the message is dangerously faulty, so log
PE> BL> it and remove it. Read backwards to find Origin line. This should be
PE> BL> close to the SEEN-BY (120 bytes max). If not found you have a message

PE> 120 bytes max?  Where did you get that one from, Bob?  Your arse,
PE> oh, sorry, I almost forgot.

I'd like to know where the 120 bytes, and 80 bytes later on, comes from
too. But I don't think that approach is helpful. I thought while
considering another message that he might have meant "1 line", or "1
line plus some blank lines if they're there", but in that case I think
you check for *that*, not 80 bytes. Anyway, I'll be interested in the
reply.

PE> BL>   If you find the Origin line, look for the Tearline within 80 bytes.

PE> Another 80 bytes obtained from inspecting your anal passage?
PE> Right on, Bob.  Did you design the T29 too?

PE> BL> If found look for an EOT. If found remove it and add your own in front
PE> BL> of the Tearline. The other dopey bastard may have put his EOT in the
PE> BL> wrong place.

PE> Yeah, right.  Can't rely on them getting EOT right, so best not
PE> rely on them getting the origin right either, so ignore that.  And
PE> ignore the text too, and the header, yeah right, makes perfect
PE> sense now.

As someone who's trying to learn and understand this stuff, I'd like to
see the reasoned comments on both sides.

[rest chomped]

Regards, fIM.

 * * Unable to locate Diet Pepsi -- Operator Halted!
@EOT:

---