Hi! August,

On 06/04/2019 01:40 AM, you wrote:

> experimented with the share attached to one of the WinXX pcs and made it
> avaiable for access from the Ubuntu pc.  Worked great.

Kewl.  I did a lot of early work with a coaxial LAN between just two
Win95/Win98 PCs, maybe even WFWG3.11.

> Martin and I concluded that Sempoint's JAM support is broken.  Are you
> absolutely sure your test message bases are JAM?  ..or did you just try
> MSG for Sempoint testing?

I'm still thinking it's SemPoint's 16-bitness in your modern Windows OSs,
putting the use of any Windows compatibility or visualization aside.  There
was one .msg netmail area used along with a dozen-to-fifteen JAM areas (one
of which might have been netmail, as well).

For simplicity, I went just for the areas SemPoint *already* knew the names
of for the JAM files.  Newly-created FMail areas and areas with long-ish
Linux names were ignored.  I stated that kind of wrongly, given your later
thoughts.  All of the areas were created and maintained by FMail, with some
using the same names as known to my Windows PCs.

My test post was from a JAM base for the FIDOTEST echo.  It didn't succeed
because I didn't put in enough time to sort out the weirdness with
pathnames in the SemPoint config for semaphore files, so that my Linux
script on the host could export it.

> I'm just wondering why JAM messagebases are cooperating for you, but not
> for Martin and me.

Modern OSs.  I used to even have problems with my Win98SE vBox. SemPoint
was the only program able to send netmail.  In the vBox, GoldEd used to
always screw up destination addresses... always.

> Also, one of Martin's concerns was that it looks like Sempoint is adding
> "garbage characters" near the Origin line.  You do not
notice that in your
> set up?

Nope.

> But.. if you are using Fmail, that might explain many differences. You're
> the only one who reports using Fmail.  Maybe *that's* the difference?

Don't even think about it.  It's no good if you intend to run a NNTP server
based off of it; it renumbers messages in JAM areas during maint.  Besides
which, it doesn't know about JAM netmail areas yet.  And, it insists on
extensively using a Hudson base.

If you were on good speaking terms with FastEcho, then stick with it. Or,
if you're into sado-masochism then HPT.  Did I say once that CM was the
easiest?  It's /known to work/ in XP...  :)

Cheers,
Paul.

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0