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 of that and 
ml> i've been running tearlineless for over 2 years (at least)...

Yes, and your messages are what constitutes part of the mess.  And that
isn't "bullcaca", you admitted it yourself that manual
intervention is needed to separate out the user-text on your messages.  At
the moment, we only need to get you to change (to fully comply with FTS-4,
except make it unambiguous).  That is a minor change, as it is not that you
don't have the ability to generate a tearline, it's because you are
deliberately choosing to ignore the bit in FTS-4 about being completely
compatible.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---