In reply to Nick Laflamme the answer is yes and it is not epas. Our
mail passes through several hands and we already did all of the other
checks and we're not paranoic nor unprofessional, but cautious to make
an air tight case.  The reason for not dealing with the matter sooner
was that we needed proof positive and absolute which meant that we had
not only to observe but prove that we were correct by stimulating the
abuse so that there could be not doubt.  As a programmer and network
expert, you must realize that with the high degree of
interconnectivity and embeddedness of the internet, it was very hard
to make sure that all other influences were eliminated and that only
one possible source of interference was possible. This tool external
verbal stimulation of the environment as well. If you really want to
know how complicated this can become try the Electronic Frontier?
people in Washington. There is a little more involved here. I am
actually accustomed to the tirades: it is the principal method for
stopping any further investigation or action. I would emphasize again
that it is not epas nor any of their people who have been helpful in
uncovering the problem. I would not have bothered replying but it
seemed really unfair to blame the very people who provide excellent
service beyond reproach. -- Paul.
--
 
Dr. Paul S. di Virgilio,  University of Toronto  [log in to unmask]