
From randy@psg.com Mon Jun 21 09:56:35 1993
Received: from rip.psg.com by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1)
	id AA12910; Mon, 21 Jun 93 09:56:21 -0700
Received: by rip.psg.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #5)
	id m0o7pAC-000302C; Mon, 21 Jun 93 09:56 PDT
Message-Id: <m0o7pAC-000302C@rip.psg.com>
From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
Subject: <FWD> from RGN17 (fwd)
To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 09:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 11824     
Status: OR

Forwarded message:
From m2xenix.psg.com!lisa Mon Jun 21 00:28:54 1993
Message-Id: <m0o7gJ6-0003khC@m2xenix.psg.com>
Subject: <FWD> from RGN17
To: randy@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 0:28:47 PDT
From: Lisa Gronke <lisa@m2xenix.psg.com>


 
Message Area  21: Echo RGN17 Sysop Chat
#126 18 Jun 93  23:09:00 [2] 
From: Alex Stuart
To:   All
Subj: Nodelist shrinkwrap agreement
 
 * Message originally:
     From: Alex Stuart
     To  : Dallas Hinton
     Date: 18-06-93
     Area: "Net 340 Sysop Conference (Fido)"
 * Forwarded by Alex Stuart using RemoteAccess 2.00.g1+
 
* Original via netmail
 
 > AS> I've got real concerns about the 'shrinkwrap' header on this
 > AS> weeks nodelist, as on a quick reading it purports to
 > AS> contractually bar me from pursuing, or assisting in pursing,
 > AS> remedies related to breach of copyright in the use of mail
 > AS> processing software. I'm already under contractual
 > AS> obligations which, under certain forseable circumstances
 > AS> would put me in exactly that position, and as a result on a
 > AS> strict reading of the licence agreement in the nodelist I'm
 > AS> barred from using the nodelist.
 
 > If you are NOW barred from using it, you were last
 > week too!  Want to give me more details?
 
    The provision wasn't in last weeks nodelist - it's added in
this weeks nodediff.
 
    You'll have now gotten the file I distributed to my net,
which gives more detailed comments. My real problem with it is
the way in which this was was done, which certainly caught me by
surprize, and I gather you :-).
 
 > AS> While I think I grab the intent behind the addition, the
 > AS> whole thing is badly drafted, internally inconsistent,
 > AS> almost certainly ineffective in most jurisdictions and
 > AS> possibly, as it stands now, illegal in some jurisdictions,
 > AS> and hence its distribution would itself be a violation of
 > AS> policy.
 
 > I don't agree.  I would appreciate it if you would
 > cite specifics and/or provide alternative wording?
 
    I'm assuming you haven't actually read the bit I'm talking
about, which was not in last weeks nodelist, but will be
introduced by today's nodediff for the first time.
 
    What it does - leaving aside the drafting errors, ambiguity
as between who is the licensor and the holder of copyright, is
to porport to impose conditions on the use of the nodelist:
 
;S By using this nodelist, and by agreeing to be listed in this
;S nodelist, the user and/or listed sysop agrees to hold Fidonet and
;S it's co-ordinators harmless for all errors, omissions, changes, and
;S the introduction of any flags which denote changes in system status
;S (down, hold, etc.).
 
    This bit is so broad as to be meaningless. But that's not
really a problem
 
;S standards. The threat of any legal action by the operator of any
;S listed system directed against the operator of any listed system
;S regarding any matter related to Fidonet or the co-ordination of
;S Fidonet shall be considered proper and just cause for the deletion
;S of that system's listing in the nodelist.
;S
;S The threat of legal action described above by any user of the
;S nodelist shall also be just cause for the immediate revocation of the
;S limited license allowing the use of the nodelist.
 
The bit above, though, purports to make agreeing not to
"threaten legal action" against "any other operator of any
listed system" a condition precedent to using the nodelist if
the "matter is related to FidoNet."
 
If taken seriously, that has several affects. For example, the
distribution of echomail is a 'matter related to FidoNet' It is
done by software in which, in some cases, people hold copyright.
Indeed I am the Canadian distributor of some such software.
While using that software in violation of its licence agreement
would normally be actionable, or dealable with by threat of
action, as it is being used for the distribution of echomail,
which is a "matter related to FidoNet" by sysops who are
"operators of listed systems" as I am also such an operator I
cannot threaten, or take, legal action against people who use
the software in breach of the licence agreement which I am, in
fact, contractually obligated to do. Therefore, if the agreement
in todays nodelist were binding on me, I could not, in faith,
use the nodelist. That is a general problem that affects many
people throughout the world.
 
    Worse, the effect of the provision is, with respect to
software used to process mail within FidoNet, is to effectivley
create an immunity from liability from illegal use, as the
complainants and copyright holders are also, generally, listed
in the the nodelist. That is, on quick consideration, sufficient
to make distribution of the nodelist arguably a violation of
policy. But there is a broader violation of policy. See the end
of this message.
 
    There is a more general problem with respect to removing all
sorts of other rights from sysops - in some cases with, I'd
suggest, catestrophic results.
 
    Under Canadian law as it now stands a sysop is probably
liable under a variety of conditions to his users, even for
messages which did not originate on his system. The effect of
this provision, if taken seriously, is to remove the possiblity
of making a 'claim over' or third partying the sysop/and or the
person who actually wrote the message on another system. Whether
that is a good thing, or a bad thing, is something I strongly
think individual sysops should have the oportunity to decide -
certainly reducing their rights without advising them and
letting them consider the matter is I think highly improper.
 
    Perhaps worse - it may well be the case that the provision
in question would allow an insurance company to deny coverage
for an action against a sysop on the basis that by using the
nodelist and by thereby agreeing to waive the right to bring a
third party action they had, in advance, prejudiced the capacity
of the insurer to conduct a defence. Most insurance policies
that would provide insurance coverage to sysops for claims - and
many householder policies do - contain a clause that would have
exactly that result. The result of that would be that some sysop
would pay money that would, but for the provisions of the
nodelist, have been paid by an insurance company.
 
    Still possibly worse - assuming that happend, and a sysop
was denied coverage on that basis (and having once upon a time
been in the insurance law biz that's a real possibility - I know
for sure some companies that would be advised by counsel to deny
on that basis), the sysop might then have an action as against
the NCs RCs, and ZC, who distributed the nodelist without
adequetly advising the individual sysops of the consequences. In
other words, while it might create a defence for an individual
sysop, it might well actually create a a cause of action as
against the NC who distributed the nodelist, because the test
for whether they would defended by the provision would not be
the same as the test with respect to the sysops loss that
arguably caused the liablity when an insurance company denied
coverage.
 
    Anyway, I'm sure you get the point. In my view it was a) 
extremely ill considered, and b) improperly implimented.
 
    Until I hear the contrary from the members of my net, for
whom I hold copyright to the nodelist segment for net340 in
trust, I will be taking the position that any nodelist
containing the net340 segment is in violation of the copyright
of the net if an attempt is made to impose the licence agreement
contained in today's nodediff. The existing nodelist contains a
nodelist segment for which I hold copyright, and complete
reservation of rights. (My modified agreement makes it more
particular, but my existing agreement was sufficient to protect
the intersts of my net.)
 
    As the existing nodelist contains a segment to which our net
holds copyright, I am taking the position that an attempt to
modify the existing nodelist in the way in which the current
nodediff does, would make use of the the nodelist, after
application of the nodediff, a violation of our copyright. Hence
use of that nodelist would be illegal. Hence distribution of the
current nodediff, which is an attempt to modify the nodelist in
exactly that way, is a use of FidoNet prohibited by policy. :-).
 
    Again - I haven't heard from my net as yet, and I view
myself but as custodian of their interests. At the moment though
I must take the position above.
 
     -- Alex
 
--- FastEcho/386 B0614
 * Origin: Quantum Leap Victoria BC (604)595-4407 [HST/V.32bis] (1:340/30)
 
 
 
Message Area  21: Echo RGN17 Sysop Chat
#127 18 Jun 93  23:11:00 [2] 
From: Alex Stuart
To:   All
Subj: Nodediff
 
 * Message originally:
     From: Alex Stuart
     To  : Gerald Albion
     Date: 18-06-93
     Area: "Net 340 Sysop Conference (Fido)"
 * Forwarded by Alex Stuart using RemoteAccess 2.00.g1+
 * Copy Forwarded from "340 Sysop" to Dallas Hinton, (1:153/715)
 
GA>I just read it.  What a bunch of utter trash!  If someone
GA>sends me an ANSi bomb or trojan via Fidonet, I can be thrown
GA>out of the net for trying to press charges or file a civil
GA>suit?
 
        It would appear to entail that, and I'll give some other
examples, in addition to the ones I've sent to Dallas in the
message I copied here. While I understand the intention to
protect sysops, it seems to me to have seriously overlooked the
extent to which it detracts from sysops rights.
 
GP>Are the powers that be in Fidonet SO supreme that
 
        Whatever the merits of the intent, my real objection is
that it seems to me an attempt to affect sysops rights, and to
affect policy very substantially, without advising sysops, and
indeed essentially by way of a trick. Dallas, apparently, was
unaware of what has happened, and I have no idea of the actual
source. I assume it was simply ill thought out, however doing it
without advice or consideration from all those affected - some
of whom may be very dramatically affected, and indeed in some
countries it may purport to require sysops to break the law.
 
GA>Policy supersedes the law of the land?  This is the worst
GA>abomination since P4.  I must really like net 340 locally,
GA>because every time I read another edict from above the RC
GA>level, I start to wonder how I can stomach being in the net.
 
GA>[vitriolic rant from hell mode OFF]
 
GA>Back to reality, I must say I admire your levelheadedness in
GA>being able to stay neutral with respect to the latest speech
GA>from the reichstag.  Perhaps you see some redeeming quality
GA>that I don't?
 
        My view of the role of an NC is that he is the custodian
and guardian of the interests of the net. Until the sysops in
the net have a chance to consider this, I don't want to have it
decided for them by fiat. That is the real reason I am upset,
but it is also important for me to let the net decide. I can give
advice, but the decision as to whether, and how, this net
opposes this is up to them.
 
        In the interim, my position will be to preserve the
status quo. If necessary, I will argue that Friday's nodediff
cannot be used, and that the nodelist produced by it would be a
violation of Canadian law as it would distribute and use
material to which this net holds copyright in contravention of any right to
do so. I'll back off that position if that becomes the position
of the net. However, until I know that postion I see little
alternative but to prevent the use of a nodediff which would
change sysops rights in this net without their knowledge,
consideration, and consent.
 
        If it is the will of the net, I will procede to enforce
copyright and policy.
 
                 --  Alex.
--- FastEcho/386 B0614
 * Origin: Quantum Leap Victoria BC (604)595-4407 [HST/V.32bis] (1:340/30)


From randy@psg.com Mon Jun 21 14:18:56 1993
Received: from rip.psg.com by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1)
	id AA13837; Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:18:40 -0700
Received: by rip.psg.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #5)
	id m0o7tGD-000304C; Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:18 PDT
Message-Id: <m0o7tGD-000304C@rip.psg.com>
From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
Subject: Re: <FWD> from RGN17 (fwd)
To: tomj@wps.com (Tom Jennings)
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 14:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9306212108.AA13758@wps.com> from "Tom Jennings" at Jun 21, 93 02:08:29 pm
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 7080      
Status: OR

> I will try to track this one down. I'll get that damned legal notice out
> of there.

I am not positive that I disagrre with their intent, although I am
suspicious.  What I do disagree with is changing the notice without even
discussing it with you.

> Can you mail me the Z1/R1 info from the nodelist? I don't have a
> nodelist here... I wrote George Peace informally to see if he knows
> anything...

Sure.  Also note an Australian phone number on node 1:1/20.

Also note that you can just send mail to bsatti@psg.com and it will work.


;A FidoNet Nodelist for Friday, June 18, 1993 -- Day number 169 : 59223
;A
;A The FidoNet(r) NodeList, a listing of the systems within FidoNet.
;A
;A Copyright 1993, Fido Software.  All rights reserved except for the following:
;A
;A   o The FidoNet NodeList is compiled so that computer systems within FidoNet
;A     may communicate with each other.  Use and intra-FidoNet distribution
;A     rights are granted to all FidoNet system operators for the purposes of
;A     communication within FidoNet or applying for a FidoNet node number.
;A
;A   o This is a compilation of individual nodelist segments contributed by the
;A     drafters and compilers of those segments.  Contribution of these segments
;A     to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the contributors.
;A
;A Other use without express written consent is not allowed.  For other use,
;A please contact Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco, CA  94107  USA.
;A
;A Fido(r), FidoNet(r), and the dog with diskette are registered marks of Tom
;A Jennings and Fido Software.
;S
;S This nodelist is provided without charge or any other consideration
;S to all Fidonet sysops under a limited license, as follows:
;S
;S By using this nodelist, and by agreeing to be listed in this
;S nodelist, the user and/or listed sysop agrees to hold Fidonet and
;S it's co-ordinators harmless for all errors, omissions, changes, and
;S the introduction of any flags which denote changes in system status
;S (down, hold, etc.).
;S
;S Fidonet is a collection of volunteers who have all agreed to allow
;S the use of their systems for the exchange of electronic mail, and is
;S not a corporation or an individual. Fidonet relies on the cooperation
;S of individuals who voluntarily agree to adhere to certain technical
;S standards. The threat of any legal action by the operator of any
;S listed system directed against the operator of any listed system
;S regarding any matter related to Fidonet or the co-ordination of
;S Fidonet shall be considered proper and just cause for the deletion
;S of that system's listing in the nodelist.
;S
;S The threat of legal action described above by any user of the
;S nodelist shall also be just cause for the immediate revocation of the
;S limited license allowing the use of the nodelist.
;S
;S NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE
;S          --------------------------------------------
;S |
;S |
;S          --------------------------------------------
;S
;S You can request the most recent nodelist/nodediff from your Network
;S or Region Coordinator. They are usually available with the "magic name"
;S of NODELIST or NODEDIFF.
;S
;S Please check the END of the nodelist for additional technical information.
;S
;S
;
Zone,1,North_America,Surrey_BC,Bob_Satti,1-604-589-8562,9600,CM,XA,H14,V42b
,1,Dead_Mail_&_FNews_Relay,New_Westminster_BC,Geno_DellaMattia,1-604-540-9598,9600,H16,V32b,V42b,XA,CM
,2,Europe_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO
,3,Oceania_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO
,4,Latin_America_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO
,5,Africa_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO
,6,Asia_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO
,20,Fido_Tech_Stand,Doveton_VIC_Aust,David_Nugent,61-3-792-3507,9600,CM,XA,PEP
,23,FidoNews,FidoNews_Editor,Editor,1-519-570-4176,9600,CM,XX,HST,V32,V42b
,30,Inter-Network_Coord,San_Franciso_CA,Tim_Pozar,1-415-695-0759,2400,CM,XB
,31,fidonet.org,Piscataway_NJ,Hostmaster,1-908-981-9190,9600,CM,XA,XP,MO,HST,Guucp
,101,FrontDoor_Help_USA,Tulsa_OK,Bruce_Bodger,1-918-254-6618,9600,CM,XA,HST,V32b,V42b
,102,BinkleyTERM_Help,Sugar_Land_TX,Bob_Juge,1-713-980-9671,9600,CM,XA,HST,V32b,V42b
,103,TBBS_Help,Raleigh_NC,Paul_OKeefe,1-919-772-7806,9600,CM,XA,V32b
,104,RBBS-PC_Help,Colton_CA,Rod_Bowman,1-909-381-6013,9600,CM,XA,H14,V32b,V42b
,105,PCBoard_Help,Passaic_NJ,James_Roy,1-201-471-6391,9600,CM,XP,HST,V32b
,109,Amiga_Help,Ottawa_ON,Russell_McOrmond,1-613-230-2282,9600,CM,XW,MO,V32b,V42b
,111,SEAdog/SEAmail_HELP,Butler_NJ,Charles_Lekowski,1-201-283-1806,9600,CM,XP,HST,V32
,112,XRS_Help,Charleston_SC,Mike_Ratledge,1-803-853-6687,9600,CM,HST,XA
,113,OPUS_Help,Titusville_FL,Christopher_Baker,1-407-383-1372,9600,CM,HST,XX,V32b,V42b
,114,QuickBBS_Help,Houma_LA,Rick_Luquette,1-504-851-4230,9600,CM,XX,HST,V32b,V42b
,117,Fido_V12_Software_Help,Centreville_VA,Tim_Jasionowski,1-703-222-0180,2400,CM,XB
,118,Qtach2/QNX_Help,Jamison_PA,Thomas_Lynch,1-215-491-0919,9600,CM,HST,XA
,119,Maximus_Help,North_Bay_ON,Jesse_David_Hollington,1-705-494-9329,9600,CM,XA,H14,V32b,V42b
,120,RemoteAccess_Help_USA,Tulsa_OK,Bruce_Bodger,1-918-254-6618,9600,CM,XA,HST,V32b,V42b
,122,TIMS_Help,Littleton_CO,G_W_Funk,1-303-973-9454,9600,CM,XA,HST
,124,GSBBS_Help,Holcomb_NY,Michelangelo_Jones,1-716-657-7443,9600,CM,XA,V32,V42
,130,Armadillo_Help,London_ON,Erik_Sea,1-519-672-7661,9600,CM,XW,H96
,133,InterMail_Help,Pembroke_Pines_FL,Patrik_Bertilsson,1-305-436-1884,9600,CM,XX,HST,V32b,V42b,MO
,137,EzyCom_Help,Dallas_TX,Ken_Givens,1-214-641-1136,9600,CM,XX,HST,V32b,V42b
,138,RoboBoard_Help,Kanata_ON,Jason_Dever,1-613-592-9054,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b
,139,WPL_Language_Support,Ottawa_ON,Russell_McOrmond,1-613-230-2282,9600,CM,XW,V32b,V42b,MO
,140,GBBS_Help,Pittsburgh_PA,Greg_Dinert,1-412-937-9498,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b
,141,WME_Help,Sacramento_CA,Jason_Fesler,1-916-483-8486,9600,CM,XA,V32b
,168,D'Bridge_Help,Gainesville_FL,Arthur_Greenberg,1-904-372-7408,9600,CM,XX,H16
,200,Nat'l_Echo_Coord,Des_Moines_IA,Dan_Buda,1-515-964-7937,9600,CM,HST
,201,EchoList_Coord,Toms_River_NJ,Mike_Fuchs,1-908-506-0472,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32
,210,Reg_10_EchoCoord,Tustin_CA,David_Garrett,1-714-838-6539,9600,CM,HST
,211,Reg_11_EchoCoord,Milwaukee_WI,Bruce_Berna,1-414-384-1701,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32,V42b
,212,Reg_12_EchoCoord,Ottawa_ON,Ken_Wilson,1-613-739-8634,9600,CM,HST,XA,V42b
,213,Reg_13_EchoCoord,Oakton_VA,Miles_Hoover,1-703-620-3947,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32b,V42b,MO
,214,Reg_14_EchoCoord,Iowa_City_IA,John_Johnson,1-319-337-9878,9600,V32b,V42b,XA,CM
,215,Reg_15_EchoCoord,Phoenix_AZ,John_Valentyn,1-602-780-9180,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32,V42b
,216,Reg_16_EchoCoord,Westwood_MA,Jim_Greely,1-617-551-0495,9600,CM,HST,XR
,217,Reg_17_EchoCoord,Vancouver_BC,Adrian_Walker,1-604-683-0422,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32b,V42b
,218,Reg_18_EchoCoord,Millington_TN,Steve_Cross,1-901-876-3270,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32b,V42b
,219,Reg_19_EchoCoord,Tulsa_OK,Bruce_Bodger,1-918-254-6618,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32b,V42b

-30-

From tomj Mon Jun 21 14:31:00 1993
Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1)
	id AA13906; Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:30:35 -0700
From: tomj (Tom Jennings)
Message-Id: <9306212130.AA13906@wps.com>
Subject: nodelist copyright
To: bsatti@psg.com
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 14:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: tomj (Tom Jennings)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 637       
Status: O

I see that someone hacked the nodelist header, adding a bunch of
legalese boilerplate of dubious value (none outside the US) and
definitely without contacting me, the copyright holder.

Can you tell me who was responsible for this, so that I can get
them to remove it ASAP?

If there's a need or desire for added language in the nodelist,
it's certainly open for discussion; anyone is free to contact me
at any time.  However in the mean time that stuff has to come out
of there until it's finalized.

If you have trouble contacting me, ask Randy Bush.

-- 
  Tom Jennings -- tomj@wps.com -- World Power Systems -- San Francisco, Calif.

From Bob.Satti@f6.n153.z1.fidonet.org Tue Jun 22 11:40:39 1993
Received: from rain.psg.com by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1)
	id AA16370; Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:40:24 -0700
Received: by rain.psg.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #3)
	id m0o8DBN-000ayIC; Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:35 PDT
Received: by puddle.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:34:13 PDT
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 09:08:52 PDT
Message-Id: <79380.2C2750A5@puddle.fidonet.org>
From: Bob.Satti@f6.n153.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Satti)
Subject: nodelist copyright
To: tomj@wps.com
X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released
Status: OR


tomj@wps.com wrote in a message to Bob Satti:

tc> From  m2xenix!fido.wps.com!tomj
tc> From: tomj@wps.com (Tom Jennings)

tc> I see that someone hacked the nodelist header, adding a
tc> bunch of legalese boilerplate of dubious value (none outside
tc> the US) and definitely without contacting me, the copyright
tc> holder.

 While my intentions were good, things didn't work out as planned. I never intended to infringe upon your copyright. As soon it was brought to my attention that it had appeared in the nodelist, I removed it from my make files.

tc> Can you tell me who was responsible for this, so that I can
tc> get them to remove it ASAP?

 I am the culprit, and it was removed from my make files as soon as one of Region 17's NC's noticed it there and contacted me. My apologies for any concern this may well have caused you.

tc> If there's a need or desire for added language in the
tc> nodelist, it's certainly open for discussion; anyone is free
tc> to contact me at any time.

 Thank you Tom.

tc> However in the mean time that
tc> stuff has to come out of there until it's finalized.

 It's gone already, it just can't come out of the nodelist until I produce the next diff.

tc> If you have trouble contacting me, ask Randy Bush.

 I hope this gets through. In the meantime, once again I am terribly sorry for the faux pas.

Take Care

Bob
--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!153!6!Bob.Satti
Internet: Bob.Satti@f6.n153.z1.fidonet.org

From tomj Tue Jun 22 12:13:16 1993
Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1)
	id AA16425; Tue, 22 Jun 93 12:12:49 -0700
From: tomj (Tom Jennings)
Message-Id: <9306221912.AA16425@wps.com>
Subject: Re: nodelist copyright
To: Bob.Satti@f6.n153.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Satti)
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 12:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: tomj (Tom Jennings)
In-Reply-To: <79380.2C2750A5@puddle.fidonet.org> from "Bob Satti" at Jun 22, 93 09:08:52 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 296       
Status: OR

>  It's gone already, it just can't come out of the nodelist until
>  I produce the next diff.

I understand this.  If changes to the nodelist become necessary,
please contact me. Thanks for your prompt message.

-- 
  Tom Jennings -- tomj@wps.com -- World Power Systems -- San Francisco, Calif.

