Re: missing posts

All this talk has me wondering. So this is a test.

John R

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Soemarko" <fotodave@dsoemarko.us>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: missing posts

> Sorry for my post. I see now that your mails were actually to
> <sask.usask.ca>.
>
> Hmmmm.... That means it is rejected me. :-(
>
>
> Dave S
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Soemarko [mailto:fotodave@dsoemarko.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:13 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: RE: missing posts
>
> Etienne,
>
> How does your post confirm that <sask.usask.ca> still works? It seems like
> both of your mails were sent to usask.ca. Could you try sending one
> specifically to <sask.usask.ca>? It seems for my case, that always failed
> (that is, the mail would get rejected).
>
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: etienne garbaux [mailto:photographeur@nerdshack.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:53 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: missing posts
>
> I wrote:
>
>> As a check of the above reasoning, I think this message will show up
>> with <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca> in both the "From:" and
> "Reply-to:"
>> headers, because my outgoing e-mail is addressed that way.
>
> Oops, I meant to say "in both the "To:" and "Reply-to:" headers." And
> that
> was the case, confirming that the "To:" header on a list message is copied
> straight from the incoming message -- <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> in
> the case of my message, and <alt-photo-process-L@usask.ca> in the case of
> Christina's message.
>
> Also, the fact that my post got through confirms that <sask.usask.ca>
> still
> works, at least sometimes.
>
> Best regards,
>
> etienne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed Feb 15 22:42:12 2006