BL> Origin line is compulsory; 

PE> According to most, not all.

BL>   I only know what I read in the specifications. FTS4 says that is
BL> "not required by all processors... is added to ensure
compatibility."
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
BL> Where does it say anything about optional? 

Just there, according to the fuckwits.

BL> It only says that some
BL> processors don't use it. 

"which bit of 'not required' do you not understand" is what they say.

BL> Try writing a reader and discover the sequence for yourself.
BL> I've

PE> FREQ MSQ335.ZIP from 3:711/934.

BL>   If you wrote one and learned nothing about the uselessness of EOT,
BL> there is no hope for you.

So much for your theory about "try writing a reader", as if only
people who had written one could know, and you know damn well that
hardly anyone has the time to do that to prove you wrong.  What a
shame that blew up in your face.

BL> It's the *only* kludge line *inside* the Origin line.

PE> It isn't, there is the tearline and there is ^ACHRS. Poor old
PE> Bob.

BL>   And gets the same complaints as Bill reports with your fucking EOT.

He gets complaints from dickheads such as yourself.

BL> BTW, how do you know where to add your EOT? 

PE> Poor old Bob, that's the whole purpose of the bloody spec!

BL>   It's all in your own mind, Paul...

I've got one, thankfully.

BL> Read the Tear line, do you? 

Nope.

PE> In MSGED/SQ, I insert it when the user has typed in his text. I
PE> know what the user has typed in, so I know where the end is. In
PE> the case of QWK2PKT, I know that there is no tearline or origin
PE> line generated by the QWK reader, since they are fido kludges,
PE> not defined by QWK. It's only when you combine user text and
PE> fido kludges that the ambiguity arises. That's why EOT is
PE> generated BEFORE the ambiguity happens.

BL>   Ahh... so you read the Tear line, do you? 

Nope, read above, dorko.

BL> And what hgappens if I have several? Where does it go then?

The issue doesn't arise, I generate it when the message is
created, before polution.

PE> I know that there is no tearline or origin line generated by
PE> the QWK reader, since they are fido kludges, not defined by
PE> QWK. It's only when you combine user text and fido kludges that
PE> the ambiguity arises. That's why EOT is generated BEFORE the
PE> ambiguity happens.

BL>   Bullshit, Paul. QWK? What the fuck has QWK to do with FTS1? FTS4

Nothing.

BL> states that both the Tear line and Origin line may be added "in the
BL> message where it is first created." 

So?

BL> Hit me, Bozo, but don't shit me.
BL> Admit it. You *have* to read the Tear line, don't you? 

FREQ MSQ335.ZIP from 3:711/934 and you will find that SOT/EOT are
GENERATED *BEFORE* tearline and origin are added.

BL> And then you
BL> put EOT in front of it! ROFL. What a fuckwit! 

Poor old, Bob.  At least have the courtesy to apologize after you
find that the code doesn't do anything as ridiculous as that.

BL>   The only place your SOT/EOT can possibly work is in the original
BL> message, when the AUTHOR knows where his message ends. 

That is correct.

BL> After that, you
BL> have to rely on Tear lines and Origin lines, 

or EOT.

BL> which is why it fucks up when Rod sends two of them.

No, it doesn't fuck up because of that.  Rod is welcome to send me
two origin lines with PQWK260.  I don't care.  I do care when he
was using <260 though, because of a bug in PQWK.

BL>   The only way to make it work in a foolproof fashion is to read the
BL> end of the message *backwards* from the null.

The only foolproof method is to use EOT.  The second, 
almost-foolproof method is to make tearlines compulsory and either
1 or 0 blank lines before it, also compulsory.  No chance.

PE> My original push was to get tearlines made compulsory. I would
PE> have preferred that. But since the FTS can't even get their act
PE> together to make origin lines unambiguously compulsory, I gave
PE> up, and chose a different method. Which was all documented in
PE> the SOT/EOT rationale.

BL>   I read your rationale and told you what a twit you were, then. I
BL> wrote my VB pkt2qwk and confirmed it and told you again. Now I see it
BL> again with the Pascal pkt2qwk. It's not going to go away, is it?

Having written a message reader, and a pkt2qwk and a qwk2pkt, no.
Actually I didn't write them, I took over development of them,
adding the SOT/EOT support.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---