I haven't followed this thread real close so I apologize if I am repeating.
Just to add to this, if you happen to be using WRQ's Reflections or atleast
have a license, you can
directly access its commands (for the file transfer or ftp) using Ole
Automation as well as Access.  Just import the Reflections
Basic commands into your VB5(or equivalent) development environment.  Then
you can do the whole
thing in one exe.
Hope this helps.
***
John C. Dalton

David Greer wrote in message ...
>FONTAIC <[log in to unmask]> asks about automating download/importing of data
>into an Access database.  The solutions that have been presented so far
>leave the HP 3000 in control.  As it happens, I've been doing some research
>and investigation into Windows-based scripting this week.  If it is okay to
>have some of the control happen on the Windows platform, the following
>might be a nice solution (I don't have MS Access so I cannot test this).
>
>Microsoft has released a Windows scripting language called Windows
>Scripting Host.  According to Microsoft this is bundled with Windows 98 and
>will be bundled with Windows NT 5.0.  But you can download this tool from:
>
>     http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting/
>
>I've been spending some time this week playing with it (you write scripts
>in either JavaScript or VB Script).  It appears to be a pretty powerful
>scripting tool.  I've been testing it on both Windows 95 and Windows NT.
>With Windows Scripting Host you could:
>
>1.  Check to see if the HP 3000 had downloaded the comma-delimited file.
>If a new copy was present, you
>    would invoke MS Access as an OLE Automation object and load the file.
>
>2.  Alternatively, you could do the ftp transfer from the Windows platform
>and then invoke MS Access.
>
>Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT all have schedulers, so that you
>could schedule the script to automatically start nightly or whenever was
>appropriate.  All platforms also have a command-line FTP interface, which
>we have found to be very reliable.  I thought I would mention this
>approach, since it is different than the other ones that I saw in last
>night's digest.
>
>Cheers,
>
>David     <[log in to unmask]>
>