BG> Can you try replying to this via netmail, to verify that you've
BG> received it that way, and also to see if your reply makes it as well?

RS> I havent fiddled with config of PQWK yet. Its quite clear that thats
RS> the problem, the PKT doesnt have the AREA: for netmail, and it just
RS> drops it in the first area, regardless of what it happens to be
RS> called, in my case LOCSYSOP.

BG> Yeah, I've been following your minor hiccups elsewhere in this
BG> packet, and agree that it should be fairly trivial to kludge around
BG> the problem at the source code level.

RS> I havent yet reconfigured, mainly coz its a bit more elegant if PQWK
RS> would actually be intelligent in searching for an area with the name
RS> of NETMAIL in that case, not just drop it in the first area without
RS> even checking its name. IMO it would be a better way to do things
RS> unless I have forgotten some fundamental reason why not.

BG> Dunno, I recall Brenton talking about that some time ago, but never
BG> bothered to find out why his last incarnation of the program hadn't
BG> solved that problem.  Can it be that difficult?

No, its easy enough to do. I was just trying to ensure I had the
fundamentals right on that stuff and wasnt overlooking something. The
code change is easy enough if its clear its a desirable way to do things.

BG> As you've doubtless already noticed, it did indeed end up in
BG> LOCSYSOP, which I presume is the first AREA: you have specified in
BG> your PQWK config.  Shit, and I though Bink and Squish were a PITA!

I told you pure QWK systems were heaps simpler. One day you will agree |-)

--- PQWK200