NB> It's almost looking like the JAM format is correct, but Mystic    
    NB> itself might bug out and not read or display the message if there    
    NB> is no To: field in the header of the message.   
      
   jamnntpd should be handling this... upgrade your jamnntpd to the release 1.0   
   code and let's see what happens...   
      
    NB> Otherwise everything I've seen posted from a Mystic system, doesn't   
    NB> seem to mess up anything. Granted, you're forced to include a From:   
    NB> field as well as a To: field. So it could just be the interaction   
    NB> with Thunderbird not creating a To: field, and JamNNTPd making a   
    NB> To: field that Mystic doesn't know how to read..    
      
   thunderbird shouldn't be creating such...   
      
    NB> ... or something. I'm not a coder, but I'm only trying to pull   
    NB> anything I can out of the experience. I should get an answer from   
    NB> the Mystic author sometime this week on what I've asked so far,   
    NB> which includes most of what we've discussed today.   
      
    NB> Thanks to you and Mark for the efforts you gave up free time today   
    NB> for, of course. :)   
      
   you are welcome... we'll find the problem... one way or the other... sooner or   
   later... i needed to get out of bed and try to do something without coughing   
   up blood for hours anyway :/   
      
   )\/(ark   
      
    * Origin:  (1:3634/12)