Lee Bell wrote:

> That may have been what you intended, but that's not what you did.  Here is
> the specific post I responded to, time stamped Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:19:52.
>   Surprisingly, it was sent at the same and date as the message
> you responded to, on Thu, 8 Jan 2004 00:01:19 +0000.

Trivia note for all... parts of our mail server farm were down Thursday
and Friday evening for network tweaking (most of the farm is now running
switched gigabit).  The client timestamps were probably correct, but UTC
could have caused a delay in processing.  This was the first phase of an
upgrade.

In a few weeks, we will be moving raven to a nice, fat dual P-IV Xeon,
but I'll be sure to send out a warning first.

The gig update did not directly affect raven other than some recabling.

If our telco provider keeps their promises, we should also have 6x
greater internet bandwidth within 30 (working) days.

So if you don't hear from me so much this month, I'm probably buried up
to my neck in network cables :-)

Jeff