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

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

ml> no shit... and it was not my system, paul. my system doesn't care about 
ml> tearlines and it surely doesn't modify them without my say so.

ml> another test for paul.
ml> --------------------
ml> this line is under 20 dashes.

It came through intact.

PE>> Mark!  Listen!  If tearlines are made compulsory (ie you are
PE>> the only person in the entire world that needs to update their

ml> you really need to get out more, paul... i'm NOT the only one...

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

PE> I'm not surprised since it's technically impossible at the moment.

ml> to tell the difference between a "real" tearline and user
entered text? the 
ml> above samples cannot be a tearline because of at least TWO things...

ml> 1. there is NO SPACE after the first three dashes.
ml> 2. the origin line doesn't immediately follow it.

I meant in all cases.  You said there is software out there that can't tell
the difference between a tearline and a dashed line.  You are correct. 
Every single bit of software ever written cannot do it, because it is
technically impossible.  Yes, you can for some of them.

BTW, this "origin line doesn't immediately follow it" is not a
valid technical statement.  No spec guarantees that.  No spec even says
they come in that order.  Just more of the mess.  BFN.  Paul. 
@EOT:

---