Hi, Rod.

RS> BL> BTW, how do you know where to add your EOT? Read the
RS> BL> Tear line, do you? If that's the case, what's it doing
RS> BL> that the Tear line doesn't do? Your EOT logic is loony.

RS> FM> Actually, that's a very good point. If an automated
RS> FM> process can determine where to place a SOT/EOT pair,
RS> FM> then by trivial proof a SOT/EOT pair ain't necessary.

RS> You've had a brain fart. That doesnt apply to what is CREATING the message,
RS> say taking what an external editor hands it as user text, bracketing that
RS> with the SOT/EOT pair, and THEN doing whatever it chooses to with control
RS> info outside the block of user text its not concerned with.

RS> Its just as true if its got an internal editor too.

Yeah, I appreciate that. If you're the original creator of the message
you know where to stuff the SOT/EOT. But Paul is presumably doing so, by
an automated process (I don't *think* he's personally inside my
computer) in QWK2PKT, and Bob in whatever he's doing.

And of course it maybe easier coming from QWK, if it doesn't have kludge
lines anyway. But hang on, I get the opinion from your current
discussion with Paul on this that it's not the ^a kludge lines which are
the problem, it's the 'text' kludge lines (like ---) which are. And
surely they're still a potential problem coming from QWK.

SO. If it's possible for an automated process to do it, it ain't
necessary. Except perhaps for efficiency.

Regards, fIM.

 * * Sorry sweetie. I *swear* we'll get groceries next week!
@EOT:

---