REPLY: 51.fido_jamnntpd@1:135/371 21a1cb45   
   MSGID: 2:221/360 5d40554e   
   TID: GE/32 1.2   
   CHRS: LATIN-1 2   
   TZUTC: 0300   
      
   Saturday July 27 2019 14:16, Eric Renfro wrote to Tommi Koivula:   
      
    TK>> Yes, there's nothing wrong with packing jamnntpd netmail. :)   
    ER>   
    ER> Hmmm, well, why would the jamnntpd/smapinntpd say that about hpt pack   
   then,   
    ER> which only does pack netmail? heh. Granted my netmail is JAM (and   
   Netmail2 is   
    ER> fido *.msg)..   
      
   "Packing" netmail in hpt is really "sending" netmail. :)   
      
   Packing msgbase is something else.   
      
    ER> I'd be curious more about that. I specifically originally chose to have   
   JAM   
    ER> message bases because I wanted the ability to use JamNNTPd specifically,   
   but   
    ER> now that I know of and have SmapiNNTPD, I could go through the idea of   
   changing   
    ER> that, rescanning the messages to re-populate, to switch between them.   
    ER>   
    ER> If you could recall specifics on that that could be quite helpful for me,   
    ER> since.. Well, SmapiNNTPD supports Squish and JAM and *.msg because of   
   SMAPI. :)   
      
   I re-tested. Sqpack always renumbers, but "hptutil pack" does not renumber   
   squish base.   
      
   I still prefer not to purge/pack my messagebases that are used by   
   smapi/jamnntpd.   
      
   'Tommi   
      
   ---   
    * Origin: ---------------------------------->> (2:221/360)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/2 19/10 154/10 203/0 221/0 6 360 226/17 227/114   
   SEEN-BY: 229/354 426 452 1014 240/5832 249/206 317 280/464 5003 5006   
   SEEN-BY: 280/5555 310/31 317/3 322/757 342/200 640/1384 5019/40   
   PATH: 221/360 6 280/5555 464 229/426