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!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!ALPERN%SJRLVM4.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA From: David Alpern Newsgroups: net.mail.headers Subject: Forwarded mail from Kenneth Sloan Message-ID: <8280@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Tue, 12-Feb-85 13:27:41 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8280 Posted: Tue Feb 12 13:27:41 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 16-Feb-85 06:05:03 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 31 === Begin message text === Date: 11 Feb 1985 17:03-PST From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: RFC 934 - Message Encapsulation To: David Alpern In-Reply-To: David Alpern's message of Mon, 11 Feb 85 130843 PST David- Well, I probably don't have my note anymore - sadly, I find that I don't have time to participate in these RFC debates. If you still have a copy, you may do with it what you want, including posting it. As for "how to break from" in-band signalling, I support the idea of using a unique (to a particular message) character sequence, which is specified in a header field. I reject (on principle) any scheme which requires modifying the text of a message. I would prefer a scheme in which the message breaks were listed in the header (say, by line number). Something like: Break-On: 1, 53, 105, 259, 711, 911 However, that seems to be politically incorrect... Keep on fighting the good fight. -Ken Sloan === End message text ===