Bob, at 08:39 on Tue, May 16 1995, you wrote to Bill Grimsley ...

BG>> Trev crashmailed me a message informing me that this msg 
BG>> was both untrue and defamatory and that I am legally liable 
BG>> because the message originated from my system. On Josh's 
BG>> behalf I apologise to you for the comments made about you. 
BG>> Of course, don't expect an apology from him :( 

BG>> If you wish to take matters further and sue Josh for
BG>> defamation, please leave me out of it. I was just the 
BG>> middle sucker. :( BTW, you will be very pleased to know that 
BG>> I have cut his access off from posting in FidoNet 
BG>> permanently. No message from him will originate from my 
BG>> system ever again because of this.

BL> I don't think this is funny, Bill. If we start threatening 
BL> sysops with defamation, Fido falls apart.

BL> It's bullshit that the mailman is responsible for the 
BL> contents of the mail, but this dickhead sysop you quote (oops 
BL> is that defamatory?) obviously believes it and that gives 
BL> enormous power to shits willing to wield the doubt. If I 
BL> were a sysop, liable to have to defend the principle in 
BL> court because the law is undefined, I would give the whole 
BL> thing away before I got lumbered with lawyers... which is 
BL> what Lavarch and his creepy Labor mates intend anyway.

The requisite for retaining one's FidoNEt nodelisting is that one has read,
understood, and prepared to abide by the holiest of holy, Policy 4.

Policy 4 says that a sysop is responsible for whatever a user issues forth
into the net.  The "defamation" may not stand up under law, but
it can certainly lead to loss of node number (and if you don't have a node
number, you may as well be dead, ask Bill).
David

@EOT:

--- Msgedsq 3.05