BUT - the BUT is because I'm running XP-64, on a machine with no MS-Exchange/Outlook. I'll give it a shot with POSIX . Thankyou for all the work devoted to the job of cracking Yet Another MS Proprietary "standard" format, BUT I do wish people wouldbe writing their files in x86 Assembler, a small universal d/l that at least SHOULD be keyed to the OS. I realize probably 2/3rds of the Intel/AMD instruction set is redundant, and inappropriate in 90% of the cases, and it takes an artistic programmer to know when to do which (until someone compiles a huge volume of When to Use... v ... for all 3 vols and growing of the x86 set. The simple reason I cannot just get a "Windows C assembler" to do the job indicates the difficulty. Besides Steve Gibson (grc.com) there aren't that many assemby wizards left in the world, probably *because* the generalized x86 set is up to 3 vol's, rather than the less-than-8.5x11 card that provided ALL instructions and special cases for the DEC PDP-10 FULL instruction set minus specialized i/o devices folks were always building. The entire OS for the big-iron 1968 model, capable of timesharing 72 users *did* grow beyond its original limit of 128K 36-bit words sans graphics, and unlike UNIX cryptography and write-out5-words-per-task Windows Power Shell, it was simple, easy to use and easier to improve. OK, so nobody gives a damn about assembler usability these days - if you can't code in it you'l 1) never code in C(any flavor) again or switch to any other 'high-level language; and 2) You'll be able to write programs that either fit into microscopic crevasses or run several orders of magnitude faster than those designed by a stupid single-pass archaeic program, single pass because you were either on too small a machine and had to go out to lunch while that single pass occurred, or were paying "chocolate dollars" from your academic or corporate account for each microsecond of CPU time.