03 Jun 15 23:55, you wrote to me:

 ml>> why? i don't see any need... JAM support was added to the husky
 ml>> stuff... husky message posting tools should create echomail.jam and
 ml>> netmail.jam as per the JAM spec... tools that scan out messages from
 ml>> JAM bases should also recognize and work properly with them without
 ml>> any need of additional configuration... just using JAM should be
 ml>> enough ;)

 KR> Squish is enough, so why bothering with jam? ;)

hahahahaha...

 KR> I should stop kidding. ;) To avoid missunderstanding: I see your
 KR> point. If echomail.jam is JAM standard it should be supported by a JAM
 KR> supporting tosser.

you're alright... and yes, i agree... that's why i don't mind discussing it
as we have so that someone can implement it  ;)  ;)

)\/(ark

... A violent argument errupts....
---