ml>> paul, you know that this is bullcaca... =my= messages are proof
ml>> of that and i've been running tearlineless for over 2 years (at
ml>> least)...

PE> Yes, and your messages are what constitutes part of the mess.  And

ml> you keep singling me out... is your feed so small that i'm the only one you 
ml> find doing this? 

YES!!!  :-)

ml> there are others...

Well, I've never seen them.  Most people are jacked up with so many pieces
of software trying to get their tearline in that they fail to conform to
the PID spec.  THAT is a far more widespread practice by several orders of
magnitude than people not using any tearline at all.

PE> that isn't "bullcaca", you admitted it yourself that manual
PE> intervention is needed to separate out the user-text on your
PE> messages.  At the moment, we only need to get you to change (to
PE> fully comply with FTS-4, except make it unambiguous).

ml> when i was complying, there was no difference... we still had to have 
ml> manual intervention... it matters not if the tearline is in the message or 
ml> not... there was manual intervention back then when i did and there is 
ml> manual intervention today when i don't. where is the difference?

You don't need manual intervention TODAY if you generate a tearline (or use SOT/EOT).

PE> That is a
PE> minor change, as it is not that you don't have the ability to
PE> generate a tearline, it's because you are deliberately choosing to
PE> ignore the bit in FTS-4 about being completely compatible.

ml> being completely compatible with a package that's not even being used any 
ml> more? hahaha... you are on the ball today >

If it was purely documentation for a single product, you would be right. It
isn't.  It's a standard.  A bad standard.  Nay, a VERY BAD STANDARD. But a
standard nonetheless.  It is therefore to be compatible with the standard.
At the VERY LEAST you should assume the worst case.  There sure as hell
isn't any harm.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---