1.
> Subject: [RML] Test
>
> Good afternoon...
>
> Test Message.
2.
>Subject: Re: [RML] Test
>
>At 13:28 18/05/97 -0600, Jim wrote:
>>Good afternoon...
>>
>>Test Message.
>
>Good Morning...Jim
3.
> Subject: Re: [RML] Test
>
> Good Morning Jim, Adrian and All
4.
> Subject: SPAM (was Re: [RML] Test)
>
> At 06:21 AM 5/19/97 +1000, Adrian wrote:
> >At 13:28 18/05/97 -0600, Jim wrote:
> >>Good afternoon...
> >>
> >>Test Message.
> >
> >Good Morning...Jim
> >
> >Adrian.
>
> Good Evening, Adrian and Jim.
Jim, Adrian and Barry and ANDREW, do you think it is REALLY necessary for all
listmembers to read such messages???????
And to pay for such messages?????? (I know, not everybody has to pay for it,
but there are members they have!!!!!)
I think there are two better ways: Include the little word SPAM in the subject,
or, very much better: Send it via private email to the target!
That's all, Harro wanted to say!
5. Another example:
> Subject: Re: [RML] ulcer disease
>
> Well Bruce, it made it to the RML! You are smarter than you think!
>
> How is the fish biz going? Do you have any saratogas I can get from you
> when I am there next month? I need 5 small ones. I have a permit to export
> from OZ now so I am legal. :-)
Is this the right subject? Is this a message for the RML????? I think
(I am personally!!) this is an absolutely private message, that could have
been send from the sender to the target just via private email, not via the
RML!!!
Ok, another word to Andrew and Alan:
I think it is very normal to get tired of such a work after a period of time.
So I think it is a valid request for another home of the list. But on the
other hand you both are a little bit touchy. You're not responsible for what
other listmembers are doing, so don't refer any criticism, that is targeted to
all(!!) listmembers, to yourself!
That's what Chris has said before!
Ok, I hope you all calm down and interact with each other like grown-up humans.
Hope you'll understand it,
Karsten
PS.: There's another point to criticise (refers to the most listmembers! not
just Andrew and Alan :-))
Don't include the full message on that you are replying to your message, if
it is not necessary for your message!!! (I've included an example at the
end of this message.)
\//
(= o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo---------------------------------------------------
Karsten Zander Universitaet Hannover
e-mail: zander at irb.uni-hannover.de Germany
http://www.irb.uni-hannover.de/~zander
----------
> From: Bruce Sambell <ausyfish at tpgi.com.au>
> To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
> Subject: [RML] ulcer disease
> Date: Monday, May 19, 1997 5:20 AM
>
> Chriss,a year or so ago I had a conversation with a scientist from one of
> the gvt. research centers in N.S.W.( I can't remember exactly who or
where)
> He told me that he believed some ulcers on fish are caused by a type of
> fungus. He went on to explain to me (after my protesting) that there are
> two types of fungus. One that attacks dead flesh, the one we all are
> familuar with, and another which is quite a bit more sinister as it
attacks
> live flesh! I can't recall any more details of this conversation.In our
> experance we have never seen a single ulcer on any fish in a pond.
However
> I have seen it on rainbows in aquariums, and always in a tank that has
not
> had a water change for an extended period. I have never used any
treatment,
> nor could I bring myself to destroy one of my favorate animals. Almost
> always the fish recovered once I got back to my usual water changes.
There
> is, no doubt, a lot more to this problem than meets the eye and there is
,I
> understand some research is being done on behalf of the comercial
> aquaculture industry. I am very much an amiter when it comes to this
sort
> of thing but I thought You might be interested. Best regards Bruce
Sambell.
> P.S. I was going to send this on the RML but I am New to this computer
> business and I don't know how!
>