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

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

ml>> i have seen that crap TOOOOOO many times. it is directly a sign
ml>> of a programmer who doesn't want to take the time or space to
ml>> code the tearline stuff correctly. in fact, if they'd ignore
ml>> the tearline completely, they would NOT have this problem! how
ml>> can you determine if a tearline is a tearline or user entered
ml>> text? answer: you can't!

 PE> ????  Make up your bloody mind, Mark!  :-)  You just told me it was
 PE> bs that it was technically possible, so I had to start debating

no, i didn't... reread my previous message of this round >

 PE> you, now you've decided to take my end of the argument on.

hehe...

 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.

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

)\/(ark