Hi, Bob.

BL>  BL> If that's the case, what's it doing that the Tear line doesn't
BL>  BL> do? Your EOT logic is loony.

BL>  FM> Actually, that's a very good point.

BL>  PE> It would be, if it were true.

BL>  FM> If an automated process can determine where to place a SOT/EOT
BL>  FM> pair,

BL>  PE> It can't, not once a possible blank line, a possibly optional
BL>  PE> tearline and an even possibly optional origin line, have been
BL>  PE> added to the message by software.

BL>   It's the same logic, backwards. Paul now says that he can only add
BL> his EOT reliably if the Tear line does not exist, but the Tear line is
BL> added by the author, so SOT/EOT can only work at the author level.

I think that SOT/EOT *can* only be added reliably at the author
(meaning, the software which *originated* the message) level. And that
SOT should be, at least in a certain case.

I also think that in most real-world messages you could *correctly* add
SOT and EOT, but that's not the same as *reliably*.

BL>   This is where the logic gets really queer...

BL>   SOT/EOT is meant to prevent authors adding spurious kludge lines
BL> maliciously, but it only works if the malicious author adds the SOT
BL> to prevent hid adding the malicious kludge line...

No, I don't at all think it's to prevent malicious anything. It's to
prevent accidents.

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

Which shows that in most cases with real live messages you can correctly
add SOT and EOT "on the fly". But also, because you *can*, you don't
need to!

Regards, fIM.

 * * It's what inside you, not the outside that counts.
@EOT:

---