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*!

PE> Personally, I enjoy an opportunity to slang off at someone as
PE> brain-dead as you.

BL>   But where's your answer? All you do is refer me to your silly screed
BL> on SOT/EOT that is totally flawed. You now say that SOT/EOT can only
BL> be added by the creator of the message. 

Basically.

BL> Okay. Why not use a Tearline?

You could, as I have said hundreds of times, mandate that, and the
number of blank lines before the tearline automatically put in, 
and hey presto, you have a rigid-enough spec.

BL> If you are going to add SOT/EOT, you may as well add a Tearline at
BL> the bottom and *any* kludge 

That is correct.  And what's wrong with SOT as "any kludge"?

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

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

BL>   What's your answer to that, then?

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

---