PE> Is the tearline essential? You really don't get it, do you?

BL>   What is *essential* to a mail reader is a way to define the end of
BL> the message text. 

Damn right.

BL> The Origin line does this, 

No it doesn't.

BL> so the tear line is
BL> surplus to requirement, 

Tell that to FTS-4.

BL>   With an EOT, I have to go again! For what? I *already* know where
BL> the end is. 

No you don't.

BL> If I don't find an Origin, then the message is faulty.

Unless you use a wanker's interpretation, yes.  FTS-4 leaves a lot
to be desired though, very ambiguous.

BL> Origin line is compulsory; 

According to most, not all.

BL> the EOT is an optional nuisance that
BL> slows mail processing 

No it doesn't.

BL> to no purpose.

Yes it does, even if you don't understand it.

BL> For Netmail, the address is in the header/message, and the null
BL> sets the end of the message. Again, EOT is an optional
BL> nuisance.

PE> Poor old Bob. BFN. Paul.

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

FREQ MSQ335.ZIP from 3:711/934.

BL> had to write a separate little function to overwrite your bloody
BL> useless EOT. It's the *only* kludge line *inside* the Origin line. It

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

BL> can't be left there, so it has to be removed (or overwritten with

They all do, yes.

BL> blanks). It has *absolutely* no purpose. The compulsory Origin line

Mostly compulsory.

BL> sets the end of the text... or SEEN-BY.

Actually the tearline normally does.  If you know you've got a
tearline, anyway.

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

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

BL> Read the Tear line, do you? 

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

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

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

---