FM> Hi, Bob. (Written in the blank line you *still* haven't
 FM> explained.)

  I like a blank at the top. Why don't you leave a blank line at the
top?

 BL> BTW, how do you know where to add your EOT? Read the Tear line,
 BL> do you? If that's the case, what's it doing that the Tear line
 BL> doesn't do? Your EOT logic is loony.

 FM> Actually, that's a very good point. If an automated process can
 FM> determine where to place a SOT/EOT pair, then by trivial proof
 FM> a SOT/EOT pair ain't necessary.

  ROFL!! I was beginning to think it was me...

  I don't mind people clogging up a system with pointless duplication
as long as it's easy to remove. The SOT is easy; just read down the
message until you run out of #1 lines, it's just one more... but the
EOT needs an additional step that slows the whole process. You have to
find it so you can remove it! It's only purpose is to be removed!  

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

  And exactly the same loony logic applies at the other end with SOT.
SOT is the last #1 kludge line; so is the one before. ROFL. If there
are no kludge lines, then SOT has some value. It prevents a non-point
lunatic adding his own #1 kludge line in Netmail at the head of his
text, to post it untraceably in another echo, say.

  But it assumes a lunatic bent on stuffing the system to give SOT any 
value at all, and personally as a certified and fully accreditied 
lunatic, I'd just use Hexedit and change the address too. 

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

---