RS> Pity that if the SOT/EOT has some value with original creators
 RS> of PKTs, your 'isnt necessary' has imploded tho. Its not about
 RS> QWKs.

 FM> I know that, it's about PKTs.

 BL> That's not true.

 FM> What's not true? It *is* about PKTs!

  I was referring to Rod's assertion and your agreement. SOT/EOT has
no value to original creators. It's just another Tearline...

 BL> IF the *original* creator adds SOT/EOT, then why not add a
 BL> Tearline and Origin line instead? Paul's logic is flawed. In
 BL> fact, Paul's logic isn't.

 FM> I agree about ^aEOT:, not about ^aSOT:

  I call it SOT/EOT generically. I have no problem with SOT.

 BL> The only way EOT can work to corect a faulty message, is if
 BL> someone like Paul in qwk2pkt adds his own EOT to a faulty
 BL> message. I actually thought he was doing that. It doesn't make
 BL> sense, otherwise.

 FM> And you can't to that. Not reliably. In I'm sure a vast
 FM> majority of messages you can do it *correctly*, but you can't
 FM> do it *reliably*. And where you can do it, you don't need to.

  I thought this was what he was doing. The lack of logic otherwise
made me think it *had* to be this.

 FM> I'm afraid I have to question this 80 bytes, too. Do you mean
 FM> ONE LINE (a thing ending with a CR or CRLF)? If so *that's*
 FM> what you look for - tear line on THE LINE before origin line.
 FM> Or are blank lines allowed to intervene? if so look for *them*.
 FM> What are you looking for the tear line for anyway?

  You're right. I used the 80-bytes to minimise the chance of finding
another Tearline within a Tearline, but it would best be done reading
CRs (and possible LFs) as part of the '---' identifier. My problem is
that this does not change the logic. No matter how unlikely I make it,
Paul will still say there is a chance... and at the same time ignores
the likelihood of EOT being stuffed. In fact, EOT is the same as the
Tearline, with exactly the same logic applying.

 FM> That was my proposition a couple of weeks ago. I now know that
 FM> it's not possible to reliably add SOT to a packet unless you're
 FM> the originator, although I believe it is to add EOT (pending
 FM> the discussion which will inevitably ensue. :-)

  (grin)

  The next stage is to examine the many ways of stuffing EOT, and
compare the results to a stuffed Origin line and Tearline. You speak
of reliability and my reading of that is different than yours. To me,
reliability is a question of odds. Nothing is perfect. We no have to
decide which gives the better odds: SOT/EOT or the existing mess. Can
EOT make things worse? I say it can.

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

---