BL>   SOT is useful in Netmail that is neither: international; from a point,
BL> nor to a point (no #1 kludge lines) where someone has written
"AREA: "
BL> at the beginning of their message. I don't know what the odds against
BL> this are.

FM> Doesn't matter what the odds are, it *is* possible and is IMHO

This is exactly correct.  Designing a mail system that is dependent
on what the user types, is completely amateur.

FM> I think the argument against ^aEOT: is that only a message originator
FM> can put it in reliably. A subsequent processor can't for the sorts of
FM> reasons you mention. And if the originator can put it in, he can also
FM> put in the tear and origin lines, serving the same purpose (even if
FM> there are others in the "user text" earlier on).

1. Even if the originator does put tearline etc in, you don't KNOW
   that, you can only guess.
2. Some do not like tearlines, and being optional, they refuse to
   put them in.  EOT gives them another possibility.   

FM> I think the rationale is sound, based on the "don't let the transport
FM> layer fuck with the content" argument. But given that we *have* FIDO,
FM> we *have* a whole heap of existing software out there which *does* do
FM> that, there's not much point. 

Yes, Fido works.  Not very well though, when it comes to those
text kludge lines.  I gave examples of a cooking program, and
golded, in the SOT/EOT rationale.

It would have been far simpler if you had just quoted the SOT/EOT
rationale back at me with things you disagreed with.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---