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]