David Hauck wrote: > OK, perhaps understanding the reason for the 2.5.01 failure will shed light > on the 2.0.58d failure. I'll standby pending your 2.5.01 results. > It looks like something got added which broke it. Ironically a 2.5.01 client and 2.0.58d server may well work, since the errant code isn't in 2.0.58d. Tony