03 Mar 16 00:17, you wrote to me:

 ml>> individual line breakdown:
 ml>> 1. looking at the first line, there's a problem with the date on the
 ml>> left and the number of messages on the right...

 jl> The DOS version isn't Y2K comatible.

how is it not y2k compatible? does it emit or expect three digits for two
digit years?

eg: 2016 - 1900 = 116 when 16 is the expected result...

 ml>> 4. the fourth line is missing the "BBS'" on the left
side and the
 ml>> following NOTE portion is missing the 6 bytes making up the
"[cia] "
 ml>> portion that is not even show on the right...

 jl> The "[cia]" is for my own (stupid) uses. I just needed something to
 jl> fill the space. It's basically just that, a "note" which is used
 jl> throughout the board. The reason why it's different on the DOS
 jl> version, is because, well, I haven't set it to something besides the
 jl> default. The default is "Impulse Sysop" for the Sysop of the BBS.

so this is not a side by side comparison of the exact same message in the
exact same message base by two different flavors of the software???

 ml>> 5. then there's the STAT line which doesn't even depict the same byte
 ml>> values and on the right the "local" attribute is
depicted with a EOF
 ml>> character...

 jl> I believe this is my fault. I used "pipe" codes to
display the various
 jl> attributes (to, from, subject, etc) of the message. And after those
 jl> "pipe" codes, I used an "esc[7;1H" to anchor
the message header.
 jl> Somehow that ansi code at the end carried over to the
"Origin" line.
 jl> BTW, an EOF character is a arrow pointing to the right :)

oops... yeah... it was very late for me when i wrote that...

 ml>> i'm not so sure that ansi is involved now that i look closer but
 ml>> there is definitely a byte count problem somewhere... you need to
 ml>> look deeper at what bytes are being seen by both flavors of the
 ml>> tosser because something is not reading the bytes properly for
 ml>> display or is not writing them properly to the message base... or
 ml>> maybe both... that 4th line showing "[cia]" on the
left and "impulse
 ml>> sysop" on the right confuses me right now... one or both should
 ml>> contain more or at least parts of the other... the real question is
 ml>> what the original packed message in the PKT looks like and were does
 ml>> that "[cia]" portion come from with... with or
without the trailing
 ml>> space...

 jl> Again, that's for my arbitrary purposes. It has absolutely nothing to
 jl> do with the message packet or bundle.

the point is that if the exact same message in the exact same message base
is depicted one way in one flavor of the software, it should be depicted
pretty much the same by another flavor of the software... if you are using
two different copies of the messages in two different versions of the
message bases then this is going to be really tough to diagnose... you
really should have one copy of the message in one message base that is read
by both flavors of the software... that way the differences between them
can be easier to see...

 jl> Thanks for your time in studying this problem.

you're welcome but i'm not sure that i'm really being all that much help in
this case :(

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey

... Press  now to access the pirated GIFS!  ;*)
---