BL> Paul is looking at it from the point of view of mail
 BL> processing. I am looking at it from the point of view of a mail
 BL> reader. In *his*

 PE> Sorry, I look at it for BOTH.

  I assumed that only an idiot would not see how useless SOT/EOT is in
a reader. And I was right. My only error was in assuming you were not
an idiot. I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt, and you keep
proving yourself even more stupid than I think you are.

 PE> In fact, one of my primary goals was to be able to NOT have to
 PE> look at the tearline and origin line in the text portion of the
 PE> message, and I wanted a foolproof way of stripping them out.

  SOT/EOT will do that, but this is a totally different requirement.
Can't your see that? Logic is not reversible, you idiot.

 PE> Sorry, you lose yet again.

  What's the prize if I win? An autographed picture of Daffy Duck?

BTW... Do you interpret that the final PATH line should be terminated
by a CR?

  FTS-1 says of Control lines: "They end at the end of the physical
line" whatever that means. Is the null at the end of the message the
end of the physical line?

  FTS-4 defines PATH as the "last" lines in the message and infers
that there may be several which in turn infers CR, but not necessarily
for the last one. 

  I assume that the message should end with #13#0, since most do, but
I've got a few messages that don't, and they hung my PKT2QWK quite
nicely until I added another check for the end null.

  This mess is all the fault of your EOT, btw.

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

---