>                                                       ...   sending an
>unencoded ASCII control character in an e-mail message and expecting it
>to be unaltered sounds *very* optimistic to me.   ...
 
        Eric's right.   You can't expect <ESC> to survive even in cases
where LISTSERV(tm) or another list processor is NOT involved.
 
>                      ...   Surely there must be an option to encode the
>message using MIME.   ...
 
        But, of course!   At the very least,  something with embedded
<ESC> characters should be Q-P (quoted-printable) encoded.   Personally,
I despise Q-P and would use Base 64,  but some people fear the 3:4
increase in the size of the message.   I'd counter that  "This is 1996!";
as Nathaniel Borenstein said,  "Memory is cheap;  bandwidth is cheaper.".
We can afford a 25% overhead for correspondence class traffic if it
ensures delivery.
 
>  Eric
 
--
Rick Troth, BMC Software, Inc.  <[log in to unmask]>  <USNMNEWN@IBMMAIL>
2101 City West Blvd., Houston, Texas, USA, 77042   1-800-841-2031
* T H E  B E S T  L I T T L E  S O F T W A R E  H O U S E  I N  T E X A S *
DMSINI1255T