PE> Is that "--- comment out the above line" etc a tearline
PE> (in which case I want to hide it, for the same reason I want SEENBY

ml> AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! so =THAT'S= the problem... you want to HIDE a 
ml> tearline... i say don't worry about the damned things... support the PID 
ml> proposal fully and they (tearlines) will eventually go by the wayside... 
ml> until then, what's the beef?  you've fussed about me not flying any 
ml> tearline but it supports what you want, no tearline in the message when 
ml> displayed to the reader... now, make up your mind, man...

I want to delete a tearline.  I don't want to delete an SQL comment which
you may post in your message.  There is no way I can tell the difference.

PE> lines hidden), or is it part of the SQL program?  What algorithm do
PE> you have that gets it right for
PE> your program, and also gets it right for a message from me, and
PE> 99.99% of the rest of fidonet?  It is TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.  But

ml> BS... see above...

You tell me how I can distinguish between an SQL program comment and a
tearline?  YOU CAN'T.  IT IS TECHNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.  BTW, I do support the
PID proposal fully.

PE> it's the most fundamental REQUIREMENT of a mail system. Just
PE> typical of fidonet ot make a complete dogs-breakfast out of it.

ml> no... you made dogs breakfast out of something that is so minor that it's 
ml> not worth even crying about... 

Eh?  Not prefixing all kludge lines by x'01' is the original dog's
breakfast.  Just whacking text control lines into user-text with no way to
distinguish the two is the dog's breakfast.  Do you seriously think that
was an OK thing to do?

ml> face it, users will put things in their 
ml> messages because they want to... authors will add some kind of identifiers 
ml> to their programs so they can track them for some reason. in some cases, 
ml> these two things may be close in appearance... so what? it's not anything 
ml> worth crying over...

I generate a tearline to comply to FTS-4.  I write SQL comments to make my
SQL look nice.  I expect the other end to be able to distinguish between
the two without any ambiguity.  That is the fundamental requirement of a
message system.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---