BV> Oh...Shit...I've just worked out what is happening... This is
BV> from memory, so it may NOT be 100% correct, but it is a close
BV> (or is that successive) approximation...
BL> Bloody typical! It's just typical, isn't it? And after you told me
BL> to trust you, and everything,

Er...I don't think I used those _exact_ words. :)

BL> five of my absolute best mesages have gone down the gurgler.

It happens from time to time...

BL> It's just as well I didn't trust you anyway, and kept the originals
BL> buried in the back yard where I was pretty sure you couldn't get at
BL> them.  :-)

Oh...They couldn't have been _that_ good then, 'coz I don't recall
seeing them in this packet 

BV> I know it's a pain, but just tell youself you are doing some
BV> "real high-tech stuff". That will make it more like fun than
BV> drudgery :) Just use the next number for the AREA number and
BV> use the FULL name ( as used by AREAFIX ) in both files.
BL>  And now you add insult to injury!
BL>  Why are the numbers different in the two files?

That's there to trick the Pensioners, Kiwis, and other new players :)

BL> In one, Netmail is #1, and #0 in the other. It's a nice touch.

Yeah, it took a great deal of pain to get it just right too :)

BL> That'll stuff up the pensioners for sure. The oldies at the WhoopDeDoo
BL> Club liked that one a lot.     :-)

Nice to know it worked so well :) Actually the real reason for it is quite
complex and beyond the scope of this echo. For further enlightenment the
reader is referred to "The C Programming Language, by Kernighan/Ritche" :)

BL> [...later...]  About the wrong dates on the messages: I had a look in
BL> the QWK packet, and the dates are all wrong before Bluewave even gets
BL> a look at it.

Yeah, I sussed that out after you told me about it.
Paul is probably not working on it as you read this :)

Cheers, Brenton

--- PQWK194