>I don't suppose you might consider using TightVNC instead of WinVNC as your >base code, would you? TightVNC is actively being developed, has many more >features, less bugs and is more stable than WinVNC.
I have made the "please incorporate this technology" overture to both VNC and TightVNC, but there has been no response. Lobby them. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
