Hello andrew.

13 Feb 03 12:26, you wrote to me:

 RT>> Andrew has said he does not plan to fix the JAM support in SMAPI,
 RT>> which I think is a pity as most of the Fido BBS packages under
 RT>> Linux support the JAM msgbase, and it is only the Husky project
 RT>> which has proper and working Squish support.

 ac> I don't recall saying I didn't intend to fix it.  At worst, I may have
 ac> said I have no plans on fixing it, which may or may not mean it will
 ac> be fixed.  ;-)

No, you did not say you did not intend to fix it, just as I have said, and 
you have said, you have no plans to do so, but that does still leave you room 
to decide otherwise. But, there is no point in arguing about it, just wastes 
time you "just might" use fixing it. 

 ac> In the mean time, the source code is available for anyone to try...

If only I had the time, something that is really hard to come by since I got 
married, then I just might have managed to learn to do some coding, in which 
case I might have been of help. :-(

 RT>> Only Linux BBS that I know that supports Squish is Mystic BBS, and
 RT> RT>> James Coyle the developer of Mystic BBS wants to drop Squish
 RT>> support in favour of JAM.

 ac> Odd.  Why?  More people should be adding Squish support to these BBS
 ac> programs!

Well, if the Mystic BBS Squish support was as good as that of the Husky 
Project, I just might still be using it, but alas, it is not much better than 
the Husky Projects support for JAM msgbases, maybe just a tad better. So I 
now run MBSE BBS, with which I am happy, tho I'd be happier still if someone 
added Squish support to it, as the author has said he has no intention of 
doing so himself. :-))

As to why, I don't know, just that on Linux JAM seems to be the prefered 
format for most projects. :-((

Russell

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7