Russell,

 RB> should not be spouting about where the code is available
 RB> from or who did it.

 RB> Otherwise some beaurocrat will have USR rewrite future
 RB> SDL's to be un-hackable
 RB> and have Austel on the lookout.

 RB> I think we should be using it ourselves but keeping it quiet.

I'd have thought netmail would have been the go, rather than continued and
compounding discussion in a reasonably widespread Fidonet echo, if
'quietness' was the aim, then?  Don't you think anyone from or with
connections to Austel would be likely to read this conference?

 RB> I, for one don't want to see Steve writing his SDL from behind Bars.

 RB> I suppose the damage is done, though. I am half expecting Ian (moderator)
 RB> to put the mocka's on talking about promoting an "Illegal"
 RB> file in his public echo.

If you're stating that it is in fact illegal, and that you're promoting the
breaking of Australian telecommunications (or copyright?) laws, then damn
right.  I don't know that to be the case, one way or the other, but it
seems foolish to be so tempting fate.

And it's not my echo, mate, I'm just trying my best to look after it for
all you non-dealers ..

Ian

--- MaltEd 1.0.b5