On 10/21/2012 12:23 PM, mark lewis -> Nicholas Boel wrote:   
      
    ml>> what bbs software are you using, againa and what JAMbase code   
    > library is   
    ml>> it using?? ahhh, and let's also not forget 32bit or 64bit?   
      
    NB>> Mystic BBS software, not sure on the JAMbase code library, and it's   
    NB>> running on a 32bit system, though I was posting from a 64bit system   
    NB>> with Thunderbird (which probably doesn't matter, but I figured I   
    NB>> wouldn't leave it out of the equasion).   
      
    > that shouldn't matter in the equation at all... your jamnntpd is   
    > compiled the same as your mystic?   
      
   Mystic precompiled binaries are released on sourceforge as well. I'm using the   
   1.10a20 (latest). AFAIK, Mystic can compile on 32bit and 64bit systems.   
      
    NB>> As of right now, I'm posting directly from my Mystic system, using   
    NB>> Mystic's internal editor. Which I would think would give the same   
    NB>> kind of errors if the JAM code was broken, wouldn't it?   
      
    > ahh... no... each binary has its own JAMbase code... each can read its   
    > own postings but has problems with the other one's...   
      
   Ahh. Oddly enough, though.. When I post with Mystic, it shows up in   
   Thunderbird just fine, with nothing wrong. But when I post with Thunderbird,   
   it sometimes messes up the Subject line or body text in both Mystic AND   
   Thunderbird.   
      
    > i also forgot, this may be 16bit oriented... 16bit as in written in   
    > 16bit format but being read in 32bit format... the pascal code i have   
    > just given a quick look over shows me words and longints which are   
    > 2bytes and 4bytes... i'm looking for the original C code that i got from   
    > joho years ago but haven't been able to locate it...   
      
   Well, JamNNTPD did compile, though there were a LOT of warnings during the   
   compile (even though warnings can usually be ignored, especially if it doesn't   
   error out), so you might be on to something there.   
      
   I'm using jamnntpd-1.0b5, and have the source to it that I'm using to compile,   
   if that's what you're looking for?   
      
    > i would say that jamnntpd has it right, though... my ancient   
    > RemoteAccess BBS, FrontDoor editor, TimED, Fastecho all share my   
    > JAMbases with my jamnntpd using the same files and paths... those are   
    > all 16bit programs and i'm going to step out on a limb and say that   
    > Mystic BBS may be using larger (bytewise) versions of those numerical   
    > variables...   
      
   That's very possible. James has been doing quite a bit of work on it this   
   year, and compatibility with 32bit and 64bit systems was on that list.   
      
    > *IF* this is the problem, then fixing it in Mystic BBS /will/ absolutely   
    > trash the current JAMbases as they are _not_ compatible with the   
    > original 16bit JAMbase definitions...   
      
   Understood.   
      
    > i am not aware of anyone having made a "super"JAMbase format that uses   
    > 32bit or 64bit nomenclature where a word is a different sized storage   
    > bucket than 2bytes (16bits)... but the main thing is that the standard   
    > JAMbase files are 16bit... now, if Mystic BBS /IS/ using larger storage   
    > buckets, then jamnntpd may be able to be recompiled using them, too...   
    > then those two can work together BUT those bases would not be able to be   
    > simply copied to another machine with other JAMbase software and work   
    > properly...   
      
   I'll have to ask the author if he changed anything in the JAM format. He may   
   very well have changed it unknowingly while working on something else, too..   
   Thanks for the heads up. I'll see what I can dig up.   
      
    > )\/(ark   
      
    >   * Origin:  (1:3634/12)   
      
      
   --    
   Nick   
      
   --- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120923 Thunderbird/15.0.1   
    * Origin: The Pharcyde -- Purgatory Newsreader in Wisconsin (1:154/10.1)