Hi! Nick,   
      
   On 09/08/2017 07:36 AM, you wrote:   
      
    PQ>>>> GoldEd created the expected echomail.jam file, containing...   
    PQ>>>> /opt/ftn/fido/msgbase/fec1e5dd 8020   
      
    NB> The above seems like a MSGID or a computed packet naming scheme, not an   
    NB> areatag. Is the echotag actually fec1e5dd? Also, is 8020 the number of   
    NB> your message in the message base?   
      
   No bout-a-doubt it.  I'm with you on this.  It does and probably uses the same   
   hashing code... in FastEcho (FE).  It's originally an auto-created FE echomail   
   base filename generated by using a hash value.  (While browsing logfiles, I   
   narrowed it down last night to sometime during the week 14-20 December 1997.)    
   It is how FE does that sort of thing.   
      
    PQ>>>> In the areas.bbs file that file is identified as...   
    PQ>>>> !/opt/ftn/fido/msgbase/fec1e5dd WIN95                3:640/384   
      
   This is the important bit...       ^^^^     It's where the translation you're   
   looking for occurs, and also most importantly, is in FMail's area manager   
   also.  The areas.bbs is only used by GoldEd, and is the only format quotable   
   in echomail taking into account FMail's config files are binary types.   
      
    PQ>> --- 8< ---   
    WvV>>> 07 Sep 17 12:15:14 FMAIL  FMail-lnx32-2.1.0.18-Beta20170905 -   
    PQ>> --- 8< ---   
      
    NB> This log snippet doesn't mention anything about area "fec1e5dd". But it   
    NB> does mention "WIN95". Something seems odd there, like your echomail.jam   
    NB> should read:   
    NB> /opt/ftn/fido/msgbase/win95 8020   
      
   For most of the echo areas that is true; there is a very small number of areas   
   cloned from my old FE config.  Your average echomail.jam deals in echo base   
   path+filename and message number, only.  No area tags.   
      
    PQ>> The terminal screen says things about checking netmail & HMB, and   
    PQ>> then JAM areas.  Nothing about the echomail.jam file at all.   
      
    NB> I believe I had asked about some better logging when echomail.jam fails   
    NB> too. ;)   
      
   Damned right!  Or, at least a log entry that says "Nup, it's Thursday... I   
   don't do echomail.jam files on Thursdays.  Thank you for your co-operation".    
   8-)   
      
   Cheers,   
   Paul.   
      
   --- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0   
    * Origin: Quinn's Rock vBox - sunny side up on the bookcase (3:640/1384)