Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5302 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2003 00:02:30 -0000 Received: from netmail02.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.221) by mailstore with SMTP; 6 Jan 2003 00:02:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 29468 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2003 00:02:04 -0000 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by netmail02.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 6 Jan 2003 00:02:03 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.12) id 18VKhb-0005Mz-00 for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 00:01:11 +0000 Received: from [63.171.43.2] (helo=ns2.genesis-technology.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18VKha-0005Mq-00 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 00:01:11 +0000 Received: from we0h ([65.165.20.173]) by ns2.genesis-technology.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h06015j12571 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 18:01:05 -0600 From: "WE0H" To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 18:03:15 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-reply-to: <3E18C3D3.1030808@usa.net> Importance: Normal Subject: LF: RE: Re: Argo 1.31 bug report Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.0tests=IN_REP_TO,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT_OUTLOOKversion=2.43 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false All right, you're the man Alberto. Thank you. Mike>WE0H http://www.we0h.us/lf -----Original Message----- From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org]On Behalf Of Alberto di Bene Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 5:46 PM To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: LF: Re: Argo 1.31 bug report > While you're playing with the code, how about adding the date next to the > time? > What a good idea. > > 73 >Most definitely. It is hard to tell what day the captures are from without a >date. Please add it if it isn't too awful of a job. > > OK, due to the gentle but firm way my arm has been bent, I will spontaneously honor this request :-) 73 Alberto I2PHD