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.

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

In a new spec, starting from scratch, you could indeed do that.  If you
want to create a new spec, go right ahead.  There's plenty of other
suggestions we can add to a new spec.

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

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

If you can organize getting 99% of fidonet to stop using them overnight, no problems.

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.

ml> the origin line is perfect for this...

99% overnight, no worries.

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.

ml> origin lines... again...

99% overnight, no worries.

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.

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

99% overnight, no worries.

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.

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

No idea what you are talking about here.

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?

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

Do they read the tearline too?

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?

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

We're talking about in-transit systems here.  Name one that does so.

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?

ml> i beg to differ with you... all my messages should be leaving here with 
ml> PIDs in them... 

Correct.  Use someone else as an example then.

ml> that is SPECIFICALLY one of the main reasons why i do not 
ml> have a tearline... the other is the spec doesn't mandate them...

BOTH FTS-4 AND the PID spec REQUIRE a tearline.

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

ml> since when? both formats are documented and are used in common practise. 

"both" meaning what?  The fido format is zero-filled, not
space-filled. Opus/oMMM put out space-filled.  A valid date format is not
required in fidonet.  So?

PE> Forget QWK, they're irrelevant.

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

Show me the bit in the spec that you are trying to interpret with QWK in
mind.  Then I'll show you the bit that says it IS inserted (not "may
be inserted", and inserted for complete compatibility.  BFN.  Paul. 
@EOT:

---