Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!GZ@mit-mc.ARPA From: Gail Zacharias Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Message Encapsulation Message-ID: <8254@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 19:31:09 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8254 Posted: Mon Feb 11 19:31:09 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:14:09 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 17 A minor correction to Frank's description: Babyl's UnDigestify command assumes that the encapsulated messages are separated by a blank line followed by a line of 27-33 dashes. The reason for the blank line is to allow one of the most common in-text use of dash sequences, which is to underline portions of the text. --------- Note that this underlining usage is one example of a situation where the user would indeed object to the mail system changing the exact number of dashes or inserting spaces or other characters in front of the dashes. I have to agree that the most important thing is to have the fact of encapsulation noted somewhere in the message, like in the header. If the sender can communicate the encapsulation method to the recipient, the actual method used is less of an issue. It should be up to the sender to decide whether to make the EB unique by varying the EB or munging the messages.