G'day Steven,

 In a message dated 06 Nov 02 you wrote:

 CH>> I'm fully aware of the relevant paragraphs. See p. 1.3.3 and 2.1.8

 SH> Are you now suggesting that only POTS nodes comply with ZMH?  Here I
 SH> have a system that is on-line 24/7.  I also have various people
 SH> suggesting to me that my node  should be in a net because it has no
 SH> real cost limitations in contacting other ION nodes and you now suggest
 SH> I am not ZMH compliant?

 SH> Does this mean that you think only POTS obey ZMH?  If so, welcome to the
 SH> 21st century. 

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I personally don't care
what P4 says in any of the quoted paragraphs.

Quoting P4 as a reason to not use the Pvt keyword is ridiculous when there
are other paragraphs in policy being disregarded.

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

 CH>> You're not a normal node, agreed. There's enough of policy been
 CH>> thrown out the window already. Why do you insist on following
 CH>> selected paragraphs? 

 SH> Who's throwing policy out the window?  Not this child!

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 P4 is outmoded and outdated.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

 Craig

... My, it's getting awfully less early.

--- Mail Manager 1.22x/n #1390