>Peter,
>
>Actually it was the 'fix' mentioned in message#583143 regarding corrupted key data (and subsequent header corruption) that I was aiming you at.
>
>That piece of the thread said that adding 2 dummy fields at the front severely reduced the incidence of the problem described there.
>
>In any case, whatever helps...
>
>cheers and continued wishes for good luck on this

Jim, I think I am missing something, unless your "I" from "I was aiming you at" must be read in bold ... ;))
But you are not like that I think.
So what do you mean please ?

Anyway, about the "bold" thing : it was actually you who lead me to this other thread that involved Geoff (and Vlad). How about that ?
But please explain what you mean by the above ...

Your wine tastes great