Hello Mark!

In a message to Hector Santos  Mark Lewis wrote:

HS>> If I wanted to ADVERTISE I could DUMP much more into the bottom of
HS>> the message in replacement of the stupid TEAR LINE.  Don't you think
HS>> so? Can you comprehend that?  So your little above analysis of me
HS>> doesn't play true in what the realities really are.

ML> hehe, and just how long do you think your stuff would stay in use by
ML> doing that?? my guess is not too damn long -=B-)

Well your guess is probably wrong, because judging by the FACT that
other authors who do it already and the fact that email is already
flooded with multiple "ad" lines and there is no
"different" complaint
about it from "Sysops", they still use the products. 

Hey Mark, you should be the first to agree with me. In a round about way
the only "AD" that should be, if any, is the ONE allowed by the creator
of the message or the first to add the tear line.  If everyone followed
the "rule"  we would HAVE lesser junk at the bottom of the mail.

But because of the STRIPPING, what happens?  Well, a) the PID, the MID,
the TID and others comes into LIFE, more JUNK!  b) email authors knowing
their tear line will get stripped, simply add a fake "tear line" and
since every PASSING program now SEES "He's doing it, then I can" he also
adds a fake tear line and so on. You know it! Thats exactly whats
happening!

I don't understand you Mark. You should be the FIRST to understand what
the issue is. For a person that doesn't believe in the tear line,
doesn't put it in the echo mail, and doesn't believe in the extra text
in the origin line, you should be the FIRST to understand what happens
when people begin to alter information - it forces authors to look for
alternative methods.

... Bless me father for I have SIMMed.
--- Platinum Xpress/386/Wildcat! v1.2a