Hi! Nick,   
      
   On 11/25/2018 11:43 PM, you wrote:   
      
    NB> Is there some kind of issue stopping you from using a newer version   
    NB> of Windows? Or even scrapping Windows altogether and using a Linux   
    NB> GUI to host your Vbox sessions? That said, using a Linux GUI to host   
    NB> may even allow for no need for Vbox at all..?   
      
   Yes.  Actually I don't 'do' Windows any longer.  Both my hosts have Xubuntu   
   OSs, currently running four vBox PCs: one private node (Linux), for network   
   testing and nodelist-sandboxing; one non-Fido Win98se server, running   
   (now-unused) proxies, intranet http server and pop3/smtp servers; the Mystic   
   (Linux) test system; and, my other favourite Linux (below...).   
      
   These things just serve me now, where the LAN used to support a family of   
   four.  (I'm scaling back - an astonishing thought...)  The old Dell, recently   
   recovered, relocated & re-built, used to host 5x vBox tasks but is only doing   
   one now.  It's hosting my very first Linux PC (from 2005) now as a vBox!,   
   still running LAN services (e.g. DLNA media server for my MP3 & photos   
   collection).  It's multi-talented too, and has a Fido test system also   
   installed.   
      
    NB> Me personally? No. I don't use anything 20+ years old here as I have no   
    NB> need for it. All of my hardware is much newer than that, and can handle   
    NB> just about anything I throw at it. I use the free version of VMWare ESXi   
    NB> on my server machine, which runs 3-4 Archlinux 64-bit instances that   
    NB> powers all of my BBS/FTN operations, as well as a media center.   
      
   There you go.  Differences in outlook & scale.   
      
    NB> Sounds like you have still have some hair pulling operations needing   
    NB> some sorting out over there. ;)   
      
   Not really.  I'm excited every morning.  Whoo!hoo!   
      
    NB> Crashmail II I guess, but I believe you've already tried that. HPT is   
    NB> obviously the main choice up to now.   
      
   CM II still runs here on one node 24/7 & this point.  It has been my   
   experience that with both the distribution Linux binaries and locally-compiled   
   versions of the sources for version 0.71 will strip SEENBYs   
   and mangle PATHs on echomail flowing through a non-leaf node.   
      
   The same occurs with the fancy CM 1.xx versions on SourceForge.  They are just   
   cosmetic fixes, fune-tuning the programming 'style'.  Even the current   
   Scandinavian version, 0.88, hasn't been fixed.   
      
   Next.   
      
    NB> Sounds like there may be an option in the (whoknowswhen) future as far   
    NB> as D'Bridge goes. But that may end up somewhere in the same realm as   
    NB> FMail as far as stuck DOS related things going on there. But who knows,   
    NB> I would be inclinded to give it a test-go.   
      
   Yes.  Really?  That was a passing thought of mine a decade ago, just about   
   when Windows lost its shine for me.  I didn't see much of a future for   
   D'Bridge then but I'm sure it's a damned fine system still.   
      
   OTOH, I was wrong about FMail.  It has too much middle-90s baggage that I was   
   unaware of.   
      
    NB> I run a separate Mystic system here not available to the public for   
    NB> testing purposes as well. I have for quite some time. Quite a bit of the   
    NB> early FTN/BinkP integration was by my request and whatever assistance I   
    NB> could give in testing.   
      
   Ah, I thought so.  You done good, except the BSO looks weird.  But, if it   
   works then I ain't gonna argue.  ;-)   
      
   Cheers,   
   Paul.   
      
   --- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0   
    * Origin: What happens if you get scared half to death, twice?    
   3:640/1384.125)