BL> at the top in *any* position. A blank line would do.

PE> Not a blank line, as that would become user-text.

BL>   Not so. The problem the logic is that it is AREA: or nothing, when
BL> an entire message follows. If it was AREA: or a blank line it would be
BL> foolproof. The user would never have access to that line, blank or
BL> not.

Yes, but the blank line appears as an extraneous blank line in
the user's netmail.  The user doesn't want an extra blank line,
otherwise he would have put it in himself.

PE> Oh, and if the creator of the message puts in a tearline, you
PE> STILL don't know for sure at the other end whether it is part
PE> of the message or not. Only if it is MANDATORY do you KNOW that
PE> it is control information.

BL>   You still don't understand that a Tearline and EOT are *exactly* the
BL> same. 

No they aren't - your misunderstanding.

BL> I can add a false EOT just as easily 

God you're a dork.  You CAN'T add a false EOT.  Log on to Sydney
PCUG and see if you can add an EOT.  Good luck.

BL> and with more damage if I
BL> put it near the top. How do you tell a real EOT from a false one? 

It is the responsibility of each node to have their software set
up correctly.  Failure to follow the EOT spec is the same as 
failing to follow the MSGID spec.  That's your problem.  A PCable
offence, too.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---