Answering msg from Paul Edwards to All,
on Thursday May 25 1995 at 23:55

 PE> I know I already creamed you guys comprehensively last time
 PE> we discussed SOT/EOT, but I thought I'd post this anyway, just
 PE> to rub it in.  BTW Andrew, the least you could do is admit that
 PE> you just made up that "can't guarantee that my system conforms
 PE> to all of the SOT/EOT spec" rubbish.

    Actually I agree with him, it is almost impossible to conform to every
bloody little thing in your spec. You don't just define SOT/EOT: you also
attempt to redefine how we should format a message.

 PE> happens to end with a comment line (Ada comments begin "--" and
 PE> "-+--- don't forget to compile with +x5 -+---" is a valid Ada
       ^ ;-)

 PE> Another way that SOT/EOT comes in really useful is when people
 PE> post a C program (or whatever) in the echo.  The editor I use
 PE> (MSQ305.ZIP) only displays user-text in the user-text display
 PE> area (and the presence of EOT means that the control information
 PE> is stripped out with 100% accuracy instead of "hope and pray"
 PE> accuracy.  When I do a "save to disk", it only saves the user-text
 PE> portion (ie not tearline and other control rubbish), and I can go
 PE> and directly compile my program.  Considering that it was compilable
 PE> when the other person sent it to me, it should not be such an
 PE> amazing fact that MSQ305 will manage to do C program in -> C
 PE> program out, but alas, this is the exception, not the norm in
 PE> fidonet today!

    This is where your ideas clash with mine. Obviously you think that an
origin line is an unimportant piece of control information: you do not let
the user modify it from message to message; you do not even SHOW it if
viewing of control lines is disabled, I believe!

    Plus, I thought SOT/EOT was for your tosser to consume, not your
message reader ...

---