der Mouse <mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> writes:

>This is a problem in both directions, then; it both renders a large
>class of perfectly good text files (those that begin with the magic
>sequence) unprintable and places unnecessary requirements on PostScript
>code (requiring a comment for the code to be taken as PostScript is as
>silly as a cc that refuses to compile something unless it begins with
>"/*").

Eh. There might be perfectly good text files that begin with the
magic sequence, but most Postscript interpreters _require_ this
magic sequence.

>major problem is that as far as I can see there is no way to get lpr to
>pass any human guidance on, to tell the filter "this is text" or "this
>is PostScript".

Sort of. You can pass lpr some attributes (but the isPostscript property
isn't among them). However, passing this information is aequivalent
to using a "print postscript" command. I mean, where is the difference
between a "lpr --type=ps" and a "psprint" ?

-- 
                                Michael van Elst

Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
                                "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."