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

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

 PE> It would be, if it were true.

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

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

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

  This is where the logic gets really queer...

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

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

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

---