JD> Thank you for your speedy acknowledgement of my post.  

You're welcome....

 BJ> I know I haven't tested whtat Joe is trying to do....  In fact I'm 
 BJ> the opposite, I have as much of the file 
 JD> forwarding disabled as I can 

 JD> I did too, until the time came that I realized that 
 JD> using it would benefit a couple other sysops.

With links mainly by TCP/IP now, I expect more folks will attempt to use
it....  Back when it was mainly POTS LD for bringing in feeds, the cost
kept folks like me from making it generally available....  And normal file
distribution was done via a seperate .TIC file processor.....

 JD> Note:  Squish docs very clearly show how to limit and 
 JD> control the forwarding of files.  Having the capability 
 JD> to configure and control the feature is equally 
 JD> important to having it actually work at all.

Yes.  I have file forwarding turned off, but I do allow netmail forwarding
for the nodes I've agreed to handle....  The control functions seem to be
working fine....

 BJ> perform.  We need to put Joe's comment in the queue for review after 
 BJ> we finally have a stable version of Maximus/Squish running under 
 BJ> Linux......

 JD>    I've only been skimming across the 
 JD> echos of late.  I'm very happy to see the traffic in 
 JD> them!  and to know that Max/Squish are not dead.



 JD> But some of the details of what all you folks are doing get by me.
 JD> Do I recall correctly that there will not be a new Dos 
 JD> version of Max and Squish?

My initial thoughs were that it is unlikely to compile a 16 bit version of
Max and Squish in the future.  My inital attempts to get the Max and Squish
code to compile under OS/2 using the Open Watcom compiler failed with
problems using the make utility Scott had been using.  Wes took a different
tack, since he wanted to get the code running in a Unix type environment. 
So, the current work is getting Max and Squish to properly compile and run
under Linux.  The basics seem to be running now, but there are still major
areas needing work.  One item broken in the Linux environment is the MEX
VM.  Until we have the code stable under Linux, we are unlikely to fix bugs
/ features found in the DOS, Win32 and/or OS/2 sestups.....  And right now
we only have a Linux based development environment.  I want to get setup to
compile the code for an OS/2 platform (when I get / take the time).  This
may end up being the GNU C compiler port (EMX) for OS/2 or it could be done
using Open Watcom.  If we can get the code to compile with the current
(Linux based) make system under OpenWatcom, then it might be possible to
compile it for DOS again, but no one currently working on the code has that
as a goal....  As such, if the code doesn't compile under DOS when we are
done with the updates, I think it will be unlikely to get our attention to
get it fixed.  Instead, we are likely to update the code to run under both
32bit and 64 bit archtechtures, and on more than Intel
(8086/8088/)80386/Pentium and better class CPUs...

 JD> And that eventually, there are plans to have a new OS/2 
 JD> ver of Max and Squish?

I would like to get the code compiling under OS/2 again, but once I have it
running good under Linux, I'm likely to not run OS/2 as much as I am
now....

 JD> ...obviously, I'm a bit fuzzy here.  sorry...

 BJ> Also, I'll forward a copy of this to you in the MUFFIN echo, since 
 BJ> I'm not sure you are carrying the TUB echo.

 JD> I hope he is.  :)

 JD> Note:  I am not absolutely declaring it to be a bug.   
 JD> But I've spend enough time on it, that it may be.     
 JD> I'd like nothing better than somebody to come along and 
 JD> say, " hey .... maybe you configed it wrong.. do it 
 JD> like this ..blah,blah... as that is how it works fine 
 JD> for me ".

From what you documented, there is probably a bug.  Are you defining your
inbound and outbound mail paths using full path specifications?  Hmmmm.....
 

 JD> Should you or any of the other gurus with me to do any 
 JD> more experiments with my current software,  just let me 
 JD> know.    :)

I don't think we have anything else to recommend trying at this time as far
as squish goes.  You could consider various .TIC file processors and see if
they can perform the function you are trying to achieve.....

Take care.....

Bob Jones, 1:343/41

--- Maximus/2 3.01