FE>>> ~~~ tear line
FE>>>  # orlgin: author (z:n/f.p{at}foreign.net)
FE>>>  * orlgin: gateway (z:n/f.p{at}fidonet.org)
FE>>> Why do you want to document / enforce tear lines in FTS-
FE>>> 0004.002 ?

LK>>> True, tearlines are a historic artifact we can do without.

PE>> We can do without them in a new echomail format.  We can't do
PE>> without them in the current echomail format, without causing a
PE>> bigger mess than there is already.

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

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

 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).

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

 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.

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

)\/(ark