G'day Steven,

 In a message dated 08 Nov 02 you wrote:

 CH>> I was simply saying that complying only with *selected* parts of
 CH>> policy is just an excuse.

 SH> One tries to comply with the entire policy document but some parts will
 SH> affect a node's operation more than others.  If that is the case, one
 SH> has to name that part and that part only. 

Had you stated that at the beginning, we probably wouldn't still be conversing.

 CH>> I will if you like. P4 is outmoded and outdated. It doesn't need
 CH>> revision. It needs to be replaced with something that covers where
 CH>> Fido is not only today, but is heading in the future.

 SH> I won't disagree but don't expect that to happen soon.:-)

Why not? Why can't we put forward a proposal to throw P4 away immediately?

 Craig

... Disk read error.  You're in my light!

--- Mail Manager 1.22x/n #1390