JdBP>> Think of it this way.  You have the source to MsgEd, so you
JdBP>> are free to change it to stop it appending tearlines to your
JdBP>> message.  If you did, what would happen ?

 PE> There would be more confusion about the end-of-user-text than there
 PE> is already.

why? why can't you use the origin line like others do with no problems?

 PE> Any Ada program I have, with comments starting "---"
 PE> is subject to harrassment.

all the more reason to be done with tearlines and NOT use them...

JdBP>> Would your software be unable to determine where control
JdBP>> lines were in your document ?

 PE> Yes.  Unless I place some other marker, like EOT.

the origin line is perfect for this...

JdBP>> Would other people's software be unable to process your
JdBP>> messages ?  No, for the same reason.

 PE> They would be unable to find the end of user-text accurately, yes.

origin lines... again...

JdBP>> Would other people's software even miss the tearlines from
JdBP>> your message ?

 PE> Yes.  Golded may highlight some ada comment as a tearline, when it
 PE> isn't.

then golded (and any other program that does this) should stop trying to be
so pretty...

JdBP>> No.  Tearlines contain no control information (merely an
JdBP>> unsolicited advert for your User Agent).

 PE> They contain a delimeter, and contain the same information that a
 PE> PID contains.

they do?? then why is it that so many tearlines are NOT what the editor or
tosser would normally put in there?? history, dude... you really need to
brush up on it...

JdBP>> Most softwares don't even read them.

 PE> So?  Some do.  Even if none did, it makes no difference.  I don't
 PE> know any that read the PID.  Do you?

i do... and i'm sure that there are others... one is for tracking software
usage... another is for determining which software and version are not
following standard practise or are breaking the specifications...

JdBP>> Would other people's softwares add spurious tearlines to your
JdBP>> message ?

 PE> Not that I'm aware of.  Most don't add spurious origin lines
 PE> either.  None add spurious PID lines either.  So what?

hahahahahaha... ALL THREE of the above have been done by buggy software and
that software is still in use because there are people who won't upgrade
unless forced to...

JdBP>> No.  One just has to see Mark Lewis' messages in this echo to
JdBP>> realise this.

 PE> Or read Mark Lewis's messages and notice the absence of PIDs.  So?

i beg to differ with you... all my messages should be leaving here with
PIDs in them... that is SPECIFICALLY one of the main reasons why i do not
have a tearline... the other is the spec doesn't mandate them...

 PE> Or read messages from Opus/oMMM systems and notice that a valid
 PE> date format is not required in fidonet.  So?

since when? both formats are documented and are used in common practise.
there are some BROKEN implementations and there are some programs that
ERRONEOUSLY convert them when sending to downlinks when they should be
simply copying straight over and only converting on IMPORT to the local
message bases...

JdBP>> To almost all softwares (apart from some User Agents, mainly
JdBP>> QWK-based) tearlines are just user text, and thus sacrosanct.

 PE> Forget QWK, they're irrelevant.

not in the history of how this all was developed and where some of the
ideas came from...

)\/(ark