DM> You will further appreciate that if this message is disclosed
DM> to anyone other than Ted Harrison that I will see it as an
DM> excessively annoying breech of confidententiality and will
DM> consider the suspension to be indefinite.

RM> Assuming that you're quoting him verbatim, I find this bit
RM> downright abhorrent, and worth some emphasis if you do appeal.
RM> Is Fidonet a collection of volunteers or a secret society?

Its got more than its share of control freaks like More basically.
Its always been the major downside of Fido. It aint called Fight-o-Net
for nuffin. At times its even ended up in the courts in the US.

PE> Yes, I did appeal.  He is trying to get the bit in P4 about not
PE> releasing confidential netmail invoked.  It's not that easy.

ALM> This only applies to other peoples mail.  Any mail to or
ALM> from you is your property and you can do what you wish with it.

Thats not the way that some fools like More claim it. They
claim that P4 doesnt even allow you to do it with private
mail you receive yourself, addressed to you. Pity that even if
P4 did say that, and it doesnt, the law has other ideas on that.

Its always been one of the areas where the fools like More claim
they can shaft people, deliberately send a private netmail that
they know you will want to cite, then issue a PC when you do.

ALM> Do you have this twits address?
ALM> I think it's time to send the boys round.

Yeah, a molotov or two should liven things up a bit.
@EOT:

---