> ... 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