NB>> I'm using jand have the sourc have the source to it that I'm using   
    NB>> to compile, if that's what you're looking for?   
      
    > i'm using the plain old v1.0 stuff... i made a small change or two to it   
    > and so bumbed the version number in my copy when i compiled it with EMX   
    > for my OS/2 system... all of my .c and .h files are dated 2005 Jan 11   
    > except for those i made changes to   
      
    NB> That's odd. Most of my source files are dated Oct 16-20, 2004.    
      
   because you're evidently running beta5 of the 1.0 code... i don't konw how   
   many betas there were before the 1.0 release code came out... you need to find   
   the 1.0 release archive and use that instead of that beta stuff you have...   
   that may be the whole problem... that jamnntpd binary could easily have bugs   
   if it is beta code...   
      
    NB>> That's very possible. James has been doing quite a bit of work on   
    NB>> it this year, and compatibility with 32bit and 64bit systems was on   
    NB>> that list.   
      
    > yep... i carry and read that echo, too ;)   
      
    NB> Unfortunately, that is one of 4 Mystic and/or general BBS support   
    NB> echos where Mystic is discussed, but he answers any questions on   
    NB> all of them, for the most part.   
      
   what are the other echotags, please? i only know of the one and that mainly   
   because one of my downlinks took the lazy way out and turned on +* to my   
   areafix which turned on all areas instead of just those they were interested   
   in :/   
      
    > i just wanted to make sure that was known... especially since we may be   
    > altering the storage format of the message number or even the offset   
    > counter into the header or body file...   
      
    NB> True. And your paragraph here reminds me.. would packing Mystic's   
    NB> message bases have anything to do with, at the very least, the fact   
    NB> that the Subject line and some parts of the body would be messed   
    NB> up?   
      
   packing? as in renumbering? oh yes... that will definitely screw things up...   
   especially since the bbs doesn't keep up with the lastread pointers... it   
   can't... the user's reader keeps up with what messages they have read and the   
   reader specifically requests the messages by number from the stored headers   
   the reader has gathered to show the user what messages there are...   
      
   when using a nntp server, do *not* renumber the message areas... there's no   
   way to tell the reader that the numbers have changed and what the new numbers   
   are...   
      
   so, removing old messages is fine... renumbering the bases is not...   
      
   [trim]   
      
    > Compiler)... in the above chart, you can see that the unsigned range of   
    > 0..4294967295 does not exist in TP6... it gets deeper when trying to   
    > choose the proper one to use between C and pascal and other languages   
    > *as well as* taking the platform into consideration[2]...   
      
    NB> Well, in my case, I believe Mystic was written in FPC, and JamNNTPd   
    NB> would be C?    
      
   yes and yes... but i'm starting to wonder now if you've been renumbering your   
   message areas when you pack out old messages... if so, it is no wonder that   
   the reader is pulling some messed up stuff...   
      
   [trim]   
      
    NB> And in non-programmer terms you would say that this would be an   
    NB> issue I might be having here? :)   
      
   it was a possibility but i'm not so sure now since you mention possibly   
   renumbering the bases above...   
      
   )\/(ark   
      
    * Origin:  (1:3634/12)