Hi, Paul.

PE> BL> at the top in *any* position. A blank line would do.

PE> PE> Not a blank line, as that would become user-text.

PE> BL>   Not so. The problem the logic is that it is AREA: or nothing, when
PE> BL> an entire message follows. If it was AREA: or a blank line it would be
PE> BL> foolproof. The user would never have access to that line, blank or
PE> BL> not.

PE> Yes, but the blank line appears as an extraneous blank line in
PE> the user's netmail.  The user doesn't want an extra blank line,
PE> otherwise he would have put it in himself.

Bob does put them in himself! I've been trying to find out why.

PE> PE> Oh, and if the creator of the message puts in a tearline, you
PE> PE> STILL don't know for sure at the other end whether it is part
PE> PE> of the message or not. Only if it is MANDATORY do you KNOW that
PE> PE> it is control information.

PE> BL>   You still don't understand that a Tearline and EOT are *exactly* the
PE> BL> same.

PE> No they aren't - your misunderstanding.

Then I am too, but perhaps you'll enlighten me after you've read my long
message on the subject. Of course they're not *exactly* the same, but a
correctly-generated sequence of "traditional" control information, let's
call that tear-origin-seenby because that's certainly *implied* by the
sequence of discussion in FTS even though you are quite right that it's
not mandated and includes such wonderfully precise specifications as
"occurs near the end of", fulfils the complete requirement that ^aEOT
does, and can be generated instead of that at the same time.

PE> BL> I can add a false EOT just as easily

PE> God you're a dork.  You CAN'T add a false EOT.  Log on to Sydney
PE> PCUG and see if you can add an EOT.  Good luck.

I think you would be better served by explaining *why* you can't add a
"false EOT".

PE> BL> and with more damage if I
PE> BL> put it near the top. How do you tell a real EOT from a false one?

PE> It is the responsibility of each node to have their software set
PE> up correctly.  Failure to follow the EOT spec is the same as
PE> failing to follow the MSGID spec.  That's your problem.  A PCable
PE> offence, too.  BFN.  Paul.

Is it? Does SOT/EOT have the same status as ^aMSGID & ^aREPLYID? The
latter occur in a FTS document, the former FSC. And while I don't really
understand the difference yet, I thought FSC had some sort of lesser
status?

Regards, fIM.

 * * Dirty mind or clean body: take your pick.
@EOT:

---