Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6558 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2003 17:12:11 -0000 Received: from marstons.services.quay.plus.net (212.159.14.223) by mailstore with SMTP; 11 Jun 2003 17:12:11 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Received: (qmail 28187 invoked by uid 10001); 11 Jun 2003 17:12:11 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Received: from post.thorcom.com (193.82.116.70) by marstons.services.quay.plus.net with SMTP; 11 Jun 2003 17:12:11 -0000 X-SQ: A Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 19Q981-0006UL-7E for rsgb_lf_group-outgoing@blacksheep.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 18:11:17 +0100 Received: from [64.12.136.4] (helo=imo-m01.mx.aol.com) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 19Q97w-0006UC-CR for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 18:11:12 +0100 Received: from WarmSpgs@aol.com by imo-m01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36.3.) id l.4f.301c8bfd (3972) for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:10:39 -0400 (EDT) From: WarmSpgs@aol.com Message-ID: <4f.301c8bfd.2c18bc8e@aol.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:10:38 EDT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 120 Subject: Re: LF: MMANA--plain text URL? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=5.0tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,NO_REAL_NAME,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXTversion=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) 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 In a message dated 6/11/03 7:02:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sn@scgroup.com writes: >>> http://www.qsl.net/mmhamsoft/mmana/ > Yes, that is correct, and it is the "official" site. (snip) > There seems to be some confusion. The current English version is 0.72, > but one can find versions numbers as high as 1.77 in other languages. > However, those files are older (2000), and smaller (~538 KB), > so I believe that they have less functionality. Thanks. That seems consistent with what little information I was finding about the dates and sizes, so I'll give the one from qsl.net a try. Looks most interesting. Regards, John