BL>   For the life of me, I can't see why Paul can't see how fucking
BL> useless it is! It's supposed to define the end of the text. but it has
BL> to be insereted inside the tear line. Why not use the tear line? His
BL> argument is that the tear line is not compulsory. But neither is EOT!!

That is true.  People have to use one or the other to be able to
unambiguously tell the end of the message.  However, there is still
the issue of whether blank lines before the tearline were put in
by software or the user.

BL>   And exactly the same loony logic applies at the other end with SOT.
BL> SOT is the last #1 kludge line; so is the one before. ROFL. If there
BL> are no kludge lines, then SOT has some value. 

That's right.

BL> It prevents a non-point
BL> lunatic adding his own #1 kludge line in Netmail at the head of his
BL> text, to post it untraceably in another echo, say.

That's right.

BL>   But it assumes a lunatic bent on stuffing the system to give SOT any 
BL> value at all, 

People have done this in real life already, accidentally.

BL> and personally as a certified and fully accreditied 
BL> lunatic, I'd just use Hexedit and change the address too. 

Not as a BBS user you can't.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---