From: | Mike Goldberg <michael.goldberg@*******.COM> |
---|---|
Subject: | Re[2]: RS: Overview |
Date: | Sat, 21 Dec 1996 11:42:57 MST |
***** Internal: Red Shift
>>>>>[
+++++ To: Red Shift, Stonewall
(message ) ]<<<<<
Just an idea.
Mike (the one blowing up churches in Berlin)
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: RS: Overview
Author: ShadowTk Plot and Administrative Discussion
<PLOTD@********.ITRIBE.NET> at SMTP-PO
Date: 12/23/96 10:36 AM
In article <9611198510.AA851014812@*********.comm.twcable.com>, Mike
Goldberg <michael.goldberg@*******.COM> writes
> If you are sending it encrypted to one person in Red Shift, then you
> just should have sent it private. If you are sending it to Red Shift
> and Stonewall, just use Private: Red Shift, Stonewall. At the very
> least cuts down on header noise.
>
> Mike
>
Agreed, the only problem is that where it is a post internal to red
shift, with a courtesy copy going out to Stonewall for collating
purposes, using a private header didn't seem right. The person posting
the message is a member of red shift, and therefore would recieve his
own mail, on a Private header, also where it was internal, I used the
internal header. Stonewall is sort of a cc:
If it makes it easier for everyone then I'll just stick to the Private
header, but that isn't really accurate and doesn't reflect the fact that
it is a sort of "organisation" :)
--
__ \ | \
| | _` | __| | / _ \ \ \ / _ \ __ \ _` | _ \ __|
| | ( | | < ___ \ \ \ / __/ | | ( | __/ |
____/ \__,_|_| _|\_\ _/ _\ \_/ \___|_| _|\__, |\___|_|
A dark shadow in a dark world |___/