Xref: utzoo comp.mail.misc:2043 alt.religion.computers:29
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!dino!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!tank!ncar!ames!bionet!lear
From: lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: binmail vs MMDF mail file format
Message-ID: <Jul.5.02.12.10.1989.3266@NET.BIO.NET>
Date: 5 Jul 89 09:12:11 GMT
References: <113461@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1518@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <113567@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <WISNER.89Jul3114848@anableps.berkeley.edu> <113637@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <WISNER.89Jul4170048@anableps.berkeley.edu> <NELSON.89Jul4220946@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> <WISNER.89Jul4195054@anabl
Organization: Natl Computer Resource for Mol. Biology
Lines: 14

Actually, strictly speaking, USENET software can handle a number of
control characters, like ESCAPE.  Don't you ever see those messages
with vt100 underline codes?

Aside from that, I agree with you about the `minimalist' mail format.

There are a number of techniques that could be and have been used to
improve matters, the most common of which seems to be that of simply
prepending a byte count to the message so that you know exactly where
it ends.  This prevents the needless butchering of innocent Froms
(there! I got in some religion!).
-- 
Eliot Lear
[lear@net.bio.net]