PE> I think modemtrans as both a prefix and a suffix, something to add
PE> at the beginning, and something to add at the end, not sure though.

BG> It's your enhanced code, so you should be sure.  And you should at least 

It's not my enhanced code, I didn't touch that.

BG> have a rough idea of how it works too.  Not much point attaching it to me 
BG> at STD rates if I can't fucking use the thing, is it?

I have a very good idea of how everything I touched works.

PE> Binkley 2.60 should operate the same as BTPE 4.00 in that respect, as

BG> Well it doesn't, and it costs me 12c every time it recycles too.

You don't actually know, since you've never tried Binkley 2.60.  I
bet I am right.

PE> I said, but it would be best if you verified that for a fact, rather
PE> than relying on what I think.

BG> All I know is that it does NOT function as it did with BTPE 3.0 (and 
BG> Binkley 2.59 as well, of course).  

And if you get 2.60, you will know more than that.

PE> It would be worth FREQing BOS2_260.* and BSRC_260.* from 3:640/305.

BG> Dunno, I'd be more inclined to go back to 2.59 with EMSI connects if I 
BG> can't figure out how to get ModemTrans to work properly.

That should be fine, although you miss the Afterconnect then.

Just disable busy-detect for all calls in the meantime anyway,
why do you care?  Binkley will redial anyway.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---