In describing the upcoming ";seleq=[ACCESSED=TRUE]" parm of the :LISTFILE
command, Jeff Vance wrote, in describing processes that use sm-open (yes, I
know that's really an underscore, but pain-in-my-bu** BeyondMail allows
underscore only randomly),
 
> 1) Some accessors will go undetected except by count.  This is sort of ok
since
>    they do not have the file locked, but they do have it pseudo opened
>    and thus the file cannot be purged (although you may be able to rm
it).
 
So...what are the implications of using rm? Anything serious? Is this the
only case where rm may work when :PURGE fails?
 
TIA!
 
--Glenn Cole
  Software al dente, Inc.
  [log in to unmask]