DE> Glad to know someone is still supporting the good product. Now
 DE> if I could only find a decent Echomail tosser that was still
 DE> being developed :> FastEcho is good, but it's not supported
 DE> anymore,

i disagree that FE is not supported anymore... i'm still a member of the
beta team and others and myself still provide support and answer questions
posted in the support echo...

 DE> and doens't handle Squish message base format,

and it likely never will... why? because all the necessary support is
available in other applications... it wasn't until recently that the code
for those original applications was released for open source development...
all existing support for SQU bases came from learning about them the hard
way since nothing official was ever relased in the way of definitive
structures and operational methodologies...

 DE> which I've been toying with for a while and kind of like.
 DE> Seems to be a little faster than Jam and a LOT faster
 DE> than HMB :>

it is understandable that SQU may be somewhat faster than JAM... it is
especially so when one considers that JAM offers more features than SQU...

as for being faster than HMB, as in many cases, this depends on the
implementation employed for maintaining HMB bases... HMB has its own set of
limits that other message base formats highly surpass...

one can also use SQL databases for message storage... these don't have the
same limits that JAM, SQU and other formats may have but they are also not
as fast, either... and that due to the very nature and methodology of SQL
databases and their implementations...

basically, as far as speed and capabilities, i'm saying that much depends
on the implementations and that in some cases, there's not much that can be
done to boost some formats capabilities and access speeds...

)\/(ark