ml>> errrr... take your pick at the PROGRAMMERS you want "shot"
ml>> then... it's not the mail SYSTEM that has the problem but
ml>> the programmers that can't determine things correctly...
ml>> how many times have you seen something like this?

ml>> ___----------
ml>> this was under a line of all dashes

ml> HA!! something out there cannot tell the difference between a dashed 
ml> seperator and a real tearline! my point with the above is made abundantly 
ml> clear...

That was likely your own system, Mark.  You are responsible for your own packet.

PE> Mark!  Listen!  If tearlines are made compulsory (ie you are the
PE> only person in the entire world that needs to update their
PE> software), then HEY PRESTO, you CAN tell the difference between a
PE> tearline generated to "comply" with FTS-4, and one that is merely a
PE> piece of user-text.

ml> the above demonstration is not enough proof that there's much software out 
ml> there that cannot tell the difference is a tearline and a dashed seperator 
ml> line?

I'm not surprised since it's technically impossible at the moment. What
does this have to do with compulsory tearlines?  Don't tell me that
compulsory tearlines aren't possible, since we already have 99.999% of
systems generating them.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---