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

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

BL>   But your SOT goes *after* the "AREA:" line, doesn't it, dicko? The
BL> first line *has* to be "AREA:" or non-"AREA:"
This is the problem with
BL> your mad-logic. If you read SOT first, you *still* have to go back and
BL> read the first line as AREA: or non-AREA:. SOT does not add anything.

Dear oh dear, he still doesn't understand.  You don't read the SOT
and then go back.  Only a complete dork does that.  You just read
the AREA straight away.  And in Netmail, you WON'T hit the word
"AREA" (in user-text), you'll hit SOT, so you'll be safe and sound.
Poor old Bob.

BL> The statement reads:
BL>   If SOT then WHOCARES

The statement reads:
  If AREA, then ...
  nice and safe, no investigation of user-text.  SOT assures us of that.

BL>   Tell me, what do you do if you find SOT?

Nothing.  Poor old Bob.  Still doesn't understand, a year down the
track.  At least you've stopped lying about what my reader does.  I
guess that's a start.

BL> If you use SOT it may confuse someone's reader, so just add
BL> "#1IllogicalTwit" and it'll do the same thing 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].

BL>   Think about it.

Think about it yourself, Daffy.  What is the advantage of
^AILLOGICALTWIT over ^ASOT?  Big Fat Zero.

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

PE> Another 80 bytes obtained from inspecting your anal passage?
PE> Right on, Bob.

BL>   The 80 bytes comes from FTS-4... you know, the one you keep telling
BL> me to read? "This line appears near the bottom and gives a *small*
BL> amount of information."

Where's the 80 bytes, Bob?  What do we do if it goes like this:

tearline
fred nerk was here
Origin

???  That's within 80 bytes.  Is that a tearline?

PE> Did you design the T29 too?

BL>   Most of it. It was my crowning work of genius and made a huge profit
BL> for Pye... you know, profit? You do know about profit, don't you? Oh,

Yeah, I know all about tariff walls too.

BL> no. I forgot. You've got your snout in the public trough, haven't
BL> you? Oink, oink! 

Nope, the private-sector company I work for won a bid on the open
market.  WITHOUT tariff walls.  Ever had to do that, Bob?  I didn't
think so.

BL> One of these days you'll have to live in the real
BL> world of profit and competition where incpompetents go on the dole. 
BL> Good luck.

I'm doing fine thanks.  The exact opposite of how you did once we
chopped out your featherbed.  You lasted all of about 10 minutes
when that happened and YOU were faced with the REAL world.  A REAL
world that can provide TVs a hell of a lot cheaper than you were
ever capable of.  And they did then, and still do, EVEN WITH tariffs
of 5-15% against them.  I look forward to the day when the 5-15 is
slashed to 0 like it should be.  Poor old Bob, only ever knew how
to jack up tariffs to make up for his gross incompetence.

BL> If found look for an EOT. If found remove it and add your own
BL> in front of the Tearline. The other dopey bastard may have put
BL> his EOT in the 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.
PE> And ignore the text too, and the header, yeah right, makes
PE> perfect sense now.

BL>   No... someone else's mailer may have added *another* kludge line
BL> *inside* EOT. You have no control over that. 

I don't know what you're talking about.  The spec governs what
the message must look like when it leaves your system.

BL> You have already said
BL> that the text may have other kludge lines it it, and that EOT has to

Yes, ones that start with x'01'.  They are not a problem.

BL> be last with a double CR, so how do you know that EOT is in the right
BL> place as received? The original *creator* software may be okay, but
BL> what has happened since?

You tell me.

BL>   If the header is wrong, the message will be rejected by the mailer
BL> immediately following. Who gives a shit if EOT is wrong?

How do you know whether the header is wrong?  How do you know whether
EOT is wrong?  What's the difference?

BL>   Your logic sucks, Paul. Really.

Poor old Bob.

BL> If no Tearline found, look for EOT. If found remove it and put
BL> your own EOT in front of the Origin line. 

PE> Above or below the blank line? And anyhow, there was a line
PE> starting "---", can't remember if it was a tearline or
PE> user-text, hard to tell the difference come to think of it.

BL>   If it's the first " ---" within 80 bytes of "*
Origin", it's the

Ah, the 80 we pulled from our arse.  Yeah, heard about that one.
For the first time, a couple of days ago.  From a complete idiot.

BL> Tearline. What does it matter anyway? The message is undamaged and you
BL> can send netmail to the guy who wrote the reader.

What does it matter if the text is indented by 5 spaces, what
does it matter if the PATH is screwed, what does it matter if
the SEENBYs are screwed, what does it matter if the message is
all upper-cased.  Poor old Bob, the whole point of a message
system is to be able to send a message, specified by the USER,
NOT the software, to the person on the other end.  Sorry if that
is too much to ask for in your world of tariff-protected T-29s.

BL> And the mere fact that you can add SOT/EOT to a PKT proves that
BL> it

PE> Uh oh, a "Bill Grimsley Fact" I see.

BL>   Explain to me where my logic is wrong. 

I did, many times.

BL>   This is a serious criticism of your SOT/EOT. I say it is useless,
BL> adds nothing and slows mail processing. 

It doesn't slow mail processing unless you are a dork.

BL> I explained step-by-step to
BL> Frank how to insert SOT/EOT in a suss message, which in itself shows

And I explained step-by-step why you are a dork.

BL> the uselessness of SOT/EOT, logically. All you have given in return is
BL> insult. I have to assume that you have no answer.

I gave you the answer, you were unable to understand it.

BL> It's a worry when a "programmer" like Paul can't use logic.

PE> It's a worry that you got a degree in engineering and come up
PE> with the sort of crackpot design that gave us FTS-4 in the
PE> first place.

BL>   I work with FTS-1/4 because that is all there is. 

There are improvements that can be made, even with the existing
FTS-1/4.  You're too much of a dork to realise though.  You're
made of the same stuff that the author of FTS-4 was made of.
Didn't see anything wrong with mixing control information with
user-text at all, with no way of distinguishing the two.

BL> I could fix those
BL> "specifications" by changing a word here and there, but
that's in lala
BL> land with the other loony tunes. It isn't going to happen, and neither
BL> is your SOT/EOT as soon as anyone looks at it seriously as an
BL> engineer, as I have done.

A "serious engineer" who failed miserably when he met the real world.
A "serious engineer" who couldn't think of a better way to stop
teletext flicker except by replacing every TV set in Australia.
Yeah, I've heard all about you, Bob.

PE> A REAL worry.

BL>   (grin). A Chief Engineer, a consultant, and 40 years experience...

Yeah, we've seen how much all that is worth when it comes down to
the real thing.

BL> I'd be suspicious of my logic if I were you. Calling me "poor
old Bob" 
BL> doesn't change that, Daffy... and it still doesn't answer what I said 
BL> about SOT/EOT.

Bob, when you disagree with me, I am very happy, because I know I
am on the right track.  Just like when you said it would cost
$200 billion to fix teletext flicker, and I ignored you as a complete
dork.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---