MB> That has not been a problem as there are only a few 
 MB> thousand messages there, but the message numbers are 
 MB> getting up there (in the 22,000 range).

 BJ> Ok, then why haven't you picked up an external renumber routine for
 BJ> your use and avoid the possible problems?  

I'd love to, but do not know which are still OK (I've heard that there are
Y2K issues with CONFMAIL, which I used previously, for example).  Do you
have a recommendation?  It would be appreciated.

 BJ> My guess is that things should run fine till the 32K mark, and
 BJ> might run fine to a higher number....  If you don't want to use a
 BJ> renumber routine, then you need to look at the code....  

It is not that I don't *want* to run a renumber routine, I just don't
*know* what is safe to use now.

 BJ> If you
 BJ> look at the current code on source forge, you'll may need to dig
 BJ> your way through what we've done for handling types, because I
 BJ> believe Wes wants to get stuff running on 64 bit CPUs.

That would be great.  I nearly bought an DEC Alpha based PC a few years
back, but Linux was just getting started then.  That would be a screamer.

 BJ>   Basead on
 BJ> your comments (SQSH_111), I suspect you are running the 16 bit DOS
 BJ> version, not a 32 bit version.  The 16 bit version has lower limits
 BJ> on what it can handle. 

That is what I was wary of, and why the question.

Mike Bourne

--- timEd 1.10.y2k