Hi! Nicholas,   
      
   On Sun, 21 Oct 12, you wrote to me:   
      
    NB> I've switched to the 1.0b5 compile, and am getting the same results,   
    NB> so I'm guessing it's not JamNNTPd at all.   
      
   I don't understand why you're messing around with Beta versions.  Stick with   
   the final stable ones, man.  ;-)   
      
    NB> I'm really starting to doubt the compile is bad. I think either the   
    NB> author modified the JAM code to benefit things/features he wanted to   
    NB> add to Mystic, or something was accidently changed while trying to   
    NB> add something else.   
      
   If it helps any, your post without a To: line does _not_ show at all in my   
   Mystic v1.07.3 for Windows.  The message browsing just skips directly past the   
   post... ooh, a racing pun possibility... ooh, ooh... note to self.   
      
    NB> I might just test this by making another VM, and making a point   
    NB> system with just JamNNTPd and HPT, with no BBS software in there. If   
    NB> that works the way it should, it's definitely issues lying in the BBS   
    NB> software.   
      
   The more the merrier.  Add on a binkD to complete the picture.  I have two   
   non-listed (linux) vBox nodes to toy with, that are configured with   
   BinkD+Mfreq & Crashmail II & JamNNTPd, with a skeleton Mystic BBS (really bare   
   bones), and, a couple of other things occasionally (e.g. GoldEd/MsgEd).  (You   
   might find the v-e-r-y occasional post from 640/1384 here & in Win95.)   
      
    >> I'll send those binaries when I get to my own PC...   
    NB> Thanks! I'll give them a shot, but I'm still predicting the same   
    NB> results, unfortunately.   
      
   They're sent!  :)   
      
   Cheers,   
   Paul.   
      
   ... 90% of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at.   
   --- Paul's Win98SE VirtualBox   
    * Origin: Quinn's Post - Maryborough, Queensland, OZ (3:640/384)