We’ve been using the Notes/Domino type library for a few years now and are using the v6.0 type library for our Delphi apps. However, clients that have v6.5 installed report that an Access Violation appears when we create an email and fill in the body with the AppendText() function. If I try the v6.5 type library on Lotus 6.0, I get the same result. This tells me there is something seriously wrong with the AppendText() call in 6.5. I’ve posted this problem before a week ago here but got no response, so I’m posting again. Can anyone point me to a workaround to this problem or is there a fix for 6.5 we can download? We tried the 6.5.1 update but the problem still persists.
Thanks,
Jon.
Subject: You are jumping the gun…
Although the database has been created, it’s not open for use yet.
Also, I have not heard yet that there is a ND7 beta program available, although the presence of the databases is somewhat of a spoiler 
Update : Ah, I see there’s another post with more details on the beta
Subject: Re: You are jumping the gun…
??? I don’t understand your response. What does the database or the ND7 beta program have to do with this problem? Aren’t there customers that use 6.5?
Subject: *I think it was a misplaced response to question before yours.
Subject: RE: Re: You are jumping the gun…
Sorry Jon…I must have replied to the wrong thread … I was trying to reply to the Notes 7 beta topic.
Subject: AppendText() broken in 6.5
seems IBM has not identified this as a bug by now - I just checked the fixlist for 6.52
pls report this as a bug to IBM / IRIS…
Subject: RE: AppendText() broken in 6.5
Where do I submit bug reports? I can’t seem to find it…
Jon.
Subject: AppendText() broken in 6.5
Yes, I have the same problem.
there are several functions broken in 6.5
session.evaluate
notesagent.run
…just to mention a few bugs I discovered…
But if you avoid using such features, you can do some funny things
http://demo.ebe-edv.com/notesgenerator
To be serious: I hope IBM will fix those troubles sometimes and gives us a hint WHEN this might be…