BL> Paul's argument for qwk2pkt is that he "knows" what QWK is
 BL> doing, so he just adds SOT/EOT on the end... and incidentally
 BL> ignores my QWK Tearline to add one of his own.

 FM> OK. Is your argument that you can always know, and so SOT/EOT
 FM> is unnecessary?

  There is no such thing as always. There are two unlikely situations
where SOT and EOT would help.
 
  SOT is useful in Netmail that is neither: international; from a point,
nor to a point (no #1 kludge lines) where someone has written "AREA: "
at the beginning of their message. I don't know what the odds against
this are. It is not the sort of thing you do accidentally, and if a
dickhead wanted to use this method to post mail without an origin, he
could do it better by editing a hex-dump of the packet itself, and
remove his address from the header at the same time.

  Other than that, SOT is useless.

  And EOT is useless anyway, unless you have an email message with
neither Tearline nor Origin line. But even then, EOT only tells
you that these are missing. If they are missing you already know... 
unless the message has several Origin lines and Tearlines. EOT is
only uselful is you have more than one Tearline (and Origin line) but
the correct one on the end is missing. Assuming EOT is there. Which it
won't be in 99% of cases. ROFL!

  But you gotta laugh.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---