[Mailman-Users] Digests and mailman

[CARTER Anthony]

I am using mailman 2.1 (not 2.1.3 or 2.1.4) I think it is 2.1.1.

My archives seem to be fine apart from the long line wraps, however my
digests seem to be very strange. Shown below is an example:

I get a message as such:

>From: epso-forum-request at epso.intrasoft.lu
>Subject: ePSO-Forum Digest, Vol 14, Issue 4
>
>Send ePSO-Forum mailing list submissions to
>	epso-forum at www.e-pso.info

>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://www.e-pso.info/mailman/listinfo/epso-forum
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	epso-forum-request at www.e-pso.info
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	epso-forum-owner at www.e-pso.info

>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of ePSO-Forum digest..."

Which is fine. I have the following attachments:

Digest Header
Today's Topics
Untitled Attachment
Digest Footer


The Digest Header and Footer are fine. The Today's topics just have the
subject in a text document. My first question is why it is called "Untitled
Attachment" in EML and when you click on it it opens to another message with
another message per subject?

Additionally, and more problematic is that the messages then come as:

>Dear ePSO forum members,
>
>
>We would like to inform you that the Payments and Settlements News (P+S-N)
=
>No.4 is now available on the ePSO website at http://www.e-pso.info.
>
>The aim of this newsletter is to provide brief information publicly
availab=
>le on the Internet on developments in the area of payment and securities
se=
>ttlement systems (such as news, press releases, speeches, articles, etc.).
=
>This newsletter is produced and posted on the ePSO website on a regular
bas=
>is. It addresses all readers interested in more general news on payments
an=
>d securities settlement infrastructures, notably also on the regulation
and=
> oversight issues. =

See all the "=" signs at then end of the lines? Where are these being put in
because it certainly
is not in the archive.

Thanks for any help,
Anthony