Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Email adressing & RE : initiation
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 08:59:59 GMT
leaving headers for ref.
> From: "Caric" <caric@*******.com>
> To: <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [SR2] improved by Initiation?
> Date sent: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:13:50 -0700

first SR, i think you meant to send this list Caric :)
second email, to all those that are having problems targetting the
right place a few observations.

> > you get bonus dice equal to grade for shielding (a 5th dice pool for
> > your average grade 1 initiate, only 4 dice pool boxes on the sheet
> > :(, at least the new companion character sheets solved the other main
> > gripes). Note these are only for shielding, not spell defense so no
> > playing non initiated with them.
> >
> > Reflective shielding, is awakenings and is simply a new use for
> > shielding, note it requires astral perception.
> >
> > Mark
>
>
> Which brings up something I was wanting to say before. THANK YOU THANK YOU
> THANK YOU THANK YOU FASA for finally making a spell list section on the
> character cheet that has at least close to all of the necessary areas
> included. I was getting tired of learning to abbreviate everything or
> making up my own sheets. :)
> Still only four pool spaces though :(....ah well
>
>
> Caric
>
> "It's not a question of if you are paranoid...it's if you are paranoid
> enough."
> caric@*******.com
>

Ok this is the lastest in a long line of badly targeted mails.
I'll use my mailer as an example.
When i hit reply i get 5 baisc choices over where a mail is going.

field typical contents

From : Senders address
Reply to : until this Autumn this was usually Shadowrn, now
its rather random, it might be Shadowrn, it might
be the origonators address.
Cc : generally blank. Note sending mail to the list Cc
the person you are replying to has two effects,
the target gets 2 copies, if they read the
personal version first the from list copy is a real pain, it will
probably get 'duplicate message' treatment {DELETE] now for a list
reply i have to retype the list adress, not too bad but.

Sender : Shadowrn. This is now my default reply field, and
i no longer send message meant for the
list only to the sender

To : yourself most likely

I suspect all those blaming my mail programme are actually repling to
the reply to field, which the list does not always set up correctly,
it should be the list for list mail, but its not always, depends on
how the list software and sending email programme get on, a chancy
subject at best. So do a little investigation, the fields are all
correct shen it leaves here, casue i sure don't want anything other
than 'To' reading Shadowrn when messages leave, to non list mail
could get replied to the list! which won't do anyone any good. (well
it'll bounce off the list from non subscribers for a start)

Mark
Message no. 2
From: Droopy <droopy@*******.NB.NET>
Subject: Re: Email adressing & RE : initiation
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:49:25 +0000
> From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk>
> Subject: Email adressing & RE : initiation

> Ok this is the lastest in a long line of badly targeted mails.
> I'll use my mailer as an example.
> When i hit reply i get 5 baisc choices over where a mail is going.

You are the only one on the list who I've seen with their own E-mail
address in the reply to: field. You can fix that by setting your
E-mail program to not force your address into that field.

> I suspect all those blaming my mail programme are actually repling to
> the reply to field, which the list does not always set up correctly,

Well, most programs do default to the reply to: field. In your
E-mail program, you should be able to set the various field defaults.
Try leaving the reply to: field blank.

Just a thought...


--Droopy
droopy@**.net

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Email adressing & RE : initiation, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.