02 Nov 15 18:22, you wrote to me:

 ML>> that's always fun... not! it is one reason why there are or should be
 ML>> restrictions on who has access to what... especially when in multiple
 ML>> FTNs... if one is only in fidonet, one should only have access to
 ML>> fidonet echos... if one is only in foobar net, one should only have
 ML>> access to foobar echos... if one is in both, then sure, one can have
 ML>> access to both but each should be requested with the proper node
 ML>> number for the network involved...

 NB> sbbsecho can already do all of this. The only way Robert's situation
 NB> can happen is if you do not separate your echos into groups, and set
 NB> your links to those groups that they have access to. If this isn't
 NB> done, your links have access to each and every echo on your system,
 NB> since they're not separated from each other properly.

ok... so it is a local configuration problem... kinda like one might see with
segregating fidonet Zx echos from links in other zones than 'x'... it does make
it all too easy for echo leaks to happen as we see all too well in some areas 
:(

)\/(ark

... That is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!
---