PE> If an FTS spec says details a
PE> particular line type, then dammit, it's control information by
PE> definition.

ml> i disagree... CONTROL information, as jason states, is information that
ml> is used to control how the message is handled... the ORIGINAL tearlines,
ml> as used way way back in whatever network they were first developed in
ml> and the idea borrowed from, were intended as tearoff points for anything
ml> coming after them to be removed from importation into the local system's
ml> message areas... 

ie, they are CONTROL information, to be used by your tosser when importing
mail into your messagebase.  That *IS* the definition of control
information!!!!  It's generated (and in this case, even USED) by software! 
It should *NOT* pollute user-text.  RFC-822 doesn't have BS like this, and
I bet X.400 doesn't either.  Why do we need to insist on polluting
user-text?  BFN.  Paul. 
@EOT:

---