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. :-(

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

  If SOT then WHOCARES

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

 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].

  Think about it. I know it's silly telling you to think, but ask
yourself: "What would Daffy Duck have done," and you'll be a lot
closer to thinking than you are now.

 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.

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

 PE> Did you design the T29 too?

  Most of it. It was my crowning work of genius and made a huge profit
for Pye... you know, profit? You do know about profit, don't you? Oh,
no. I forgot. You've got your snout in the public trough, haven't
you? Oink, oink! One of these days you'll have to live in the real
world of profit and competition where incpompetents go on the dole. 
Good luck.

 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.

  No... someone else's mailer may have added *another* kludge line
*inside* EOT. You have no control over that. You have already said
that the text may have other kludge lines it it, and that EOT has to
be last with a double CR, so how do you know that EOT is in the right
place as received? The original *creator* software may be okay, but
what has happened since?

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

  Your logic sucks, Paul. Really.

 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.

  If it's the first " ---" within 80 bytes of "*
Origin", it's the
Tearline. What does it matter anyway? The message is undamaged and you
can send netmail to the guy who wrote the reader.

 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.

  Explain to me where my logic is wrong. This is scientific method,
Daffy. You really are adopting the Rod Speed debating style: deny
everything with no added information and then turn to insult.

  This is a serious criticism of your SOT/EOT. I say it is useless,
adds nothing and slows mail processing. I explained step-by-step to
Frank how to insert SOT/EOT in a suss message, which in itself shows
the uselessness of SOT/EOT, logically. All you have given in return is
insult. I have to assume that you have no answer.

 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.

  I work with FTS-1/4 because that is all there is. I could fix those
"specifications" by changing a word here and there, but that's in lala
land with the other loony tunes. It isn't going to happen, and neither
is your SOT/EOT as soon as anyone looks at it seriously as an
engineer, as I have done.

 PE> A REAL worry.

  (grin). A Chief Engineer, a consultant, and 40 years experience...
I'd be suspicious of my logic if I were you. Calling me "poor old Bob" 
doesn't change that, Daffy... and it still doesn't answer what I said 
about SOT/EOT.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---