PE> In normal BBS software, the author only gets to put the text,
PE> not the origin line or tearline (or EOT).

BL>   I agree that SOT is useful to stop accidental screw-ups with Netmail
BL> when there may be no leading #1 lines, but EOT has no function when
BL> both the Tear line and Origin line do the same thing.

If they did, they don't.

BL>   If this only occurs in the reader, then a far safer method is to do

Take note of the "if".  I'm not sure what you're talking about
though.  You'll have to be precise enough for me to answer on 
this one, as I have several different possible answers.

BL> a character translation for all kludge lines (as BlueWave does) inside

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but at a guess, I
would say that you are talking about "translating"
"---" into "-+-".
It happens to be a sin under god to invent a mail system that does
not allow normal, printable ascii characters to be used.

Grow up.

BL> text. Your system relies on the BBS software being SOT/EOT-aware to
BL> work. The BlueWave system relies on nothing.

My system doesn't rely on anything, Bob, it's an optional kludge.

BL> Of course Paul *does* add SOT/EOT, and to do so he has the read
BL> the Tear line so he can put it inside. It's just silly.

PE> Liar, liar, pants on fire. BFN. Paul.

BL>   I apologise, but this only shows how stupid you are. SOT/EOT is
BL> worse than useless if it is not there, or if the BBS software is
BL> unaware of it. To be even slightly useful, it should be added by every
BL> SOT/EOT-aware processor.

You'll have to be specific if you want me to answer.  Or rather,
here's a reply, with the same amount of information:

You are wrong.

BL>   If you have to rely on readers to insert it, you would be better off
BL> promoting the idea that the text generated by all readers must not
BL> include un-translated kludge lines.

You are wrong (whatever you are saying).  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---