L.D wrote:
>3. InSight doesn't *find* the mail; it *processes* the files which
> CORE.EXE sends to it. If this were *not* the case, InSight wouldn't
> be called into effect when you access messages from the desktop
> "list all files" type directory. If this were *not* the case,
> InSight wouldn't be able to handle files that aren't 'local' to the
> mail installation.
>
> If this were *not* the case, there would be no need to put
> instructions in MIME.CFG as to how CORE.EXE will handle *.mes files!
This isn't correct. This happens:
core.exe tells insight.exe to open and process the mail. Insight then finds
the file and opens it, if it was found of course, and process it. core.exe
never verifies that the file exists - it never finds it.
There are no files being sent to anyone (although it would of course be
possible with redirections).
> It is not the *length* of the path in DOS at all.
> 1.70 needs to follow \mail\members.hip\12345678.mes
> 1.66 needs to follow t:\arachne\mail\members.hip\12345678.mes
But will the entire string that Arachne wants DOS to execute be too long? I
also assume that you missed a dot in the 1.70 case. What would happen if
you changed into the same mail directory setting in both installations?
What happens if you open a message when browsing their with the help of
wwwman?.
>If InSight were the culprit [which it isn't] then the same version of
>InSight wouldn't work with core.exe 1.66 and *not* with core.exe 1.70
>... and InSight [the same version, copied over from my 1.70 install] has
>no problem reading the message in my 1.66 installation.
And the path settings are identical? (To create the same, or shorter, total
string for 1.70).
//Bernie
