Attachments, HTML, and Some Digest Replies
From: "Allan Goodall" <agoodall@w...>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:18:47 -0500
Subject: Attachments, HTML, and Some Digest Replies
As you probably know by now, I only get the digest of the list. It's
readily noticeable that some of the members on the list have their
e-mail
programs set to send HTML. This is easy to do if you use AOL, Hotmail,
or
MS Outlook. The problem is that you end up sending your message twice,
along with a lot of useless bumf.
Not to name names, but here's a sample.
The original, text version of a message included this:
> In a message dated 10/5/04 2:01:00 AM,=20
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>
>
> >=20
> > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:38:49 +0200
> > From: Frits Kuijlman <frits@kuijlman.net>
Later on, the following was added to the message due to sending HTML,
too:
> - --part1_12b.4d44bc01.2e94189d_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000"
FACE=3D"Gen=
> eva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2"><BR>
> In a message dated 10/5/04 2:01:00 AM, owner-gzg-
digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.=
> EDU writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px;=20=
> MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE=3D"CITE"></FONT><FONT
COLOR=3D"#0=
> 00000" FACE=3D"Geneva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2"><BR>
> Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:38:49 +0200<BR>
> From: Frits Kuijlman <frits@kuijlman.net><BR>
I can't speak for all of us receiving the digest, but I know I would
appreciate it if folks could turn off sending HTML to the mailing list.
I
know from past experience that most people don't know their e-mailer is
doing it.
On another topic, for two days now the digest received an e-mail from
Doc
Agren with the subject "[ft] Revised Viggen Spinal Mount" that seems to
include an attachment. I don't know if the mailing list is filtering
these out, but they are getting through to the digest.
The GZG mailing list is a "no attachments" list. This has been the
policy
(mostly unofficially) since I joined back in '96. A lot of folks on the
list are from outside of North America where they often have to pay per
minute of connect time. Attachments, particularly of images, can cause
all sorts of problems for people with slow dial up. Now that a buffer
overflow exploit was found in the way some Microsoft (and other
manufacturer) products handle JPEGs, and the first malicious use of
JPEGs
has been found "in the field", it's a good idea for security sake not to
send pictures to the mailing list.
The proper way to handle attachments is the way Indy did with
SpaceshipOne pics: post them to a web site and point a URL there. A
number of us on the list have space that we would happily allow mailing
list folks to use on a temporary basis, and there are a number of free
web hosting companies out there.
While on the subject of Indy's pictures, I'd like to say "Thank you!" I
missed seeing SpaceshipOne's flight on CNN at lunch by about a half an
hour. It was great to see the shots from the flight.
Not mentioned on the list, which was a little surprising, was the
passing
of Gordon Cooper, one of the "Original Seven". He had a history of heart
problems and had suffered hear failure over the weekend. Ironically, he
died the same day SpaceshipOne won the X Prize. The astronauts of my
childhood are all getting up there in age, so their passing shouldn't be
surprising, but somehow it still is.
The remaining Original Seven are Scott M. Carpenter, John H. Glenn, and
Walter M. Schirra, Jr. Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom died during the Apollo I
fire. Donald K. "Deke" Slayton passed away in 1993, and Alan B.
Shepherd,
Jr. passed away in 1998.
NASA maintains an astronaut biography site at:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/astrobio.html
Just out of curiosity, I looked up the biographies of the deceased
astronauts. Except for those who died in NASA service (the two shuttle
crews, Apollo 1, and several in trainer accidents), 17 former astronauts
have died. Six of them died from cancer, four in aircraft accidents,
four
from heart failure, one in an automobile accident, one in a motorcycle
accident (Pete Conrad, one of my favorite Apollo astronauts), one from
complications due to pancreatitis, and one due to heart and respiratory
failure during a climb of Mt. Everest. I don't know why, but I thought
I'd pass on that bit of morbid information.
> From: Andy Cowell <andy@cowell.org>
> Subject: Re: Initiative - was RE: Piquet
>
> Many people on the Yahoo group seem to have as much fun writing battle
> reports creatively explaining *why* events happened or didn't happen
as
> they do playing the game itself.
A friend of mine is writing an alternate history series set in a world
where Napoleon died early, Britain took over the Louisiana Purchase
land,
and Canada extends down the west bank of the Mississippi. It covers an
American Civil War set in 1850. I'm painting up some armies so that we
can play out some of the battles in his novels. Piquet is great for
this,
as he is able to take Piquet events and twist them to suit the purposes
of his narrative.
Of course this can be done with other games, too. We played out one
small
battle using GDW's _Soldiers Companion_. At one point a company suffered
an officer casualty. While taking notes, he looked up at me and said,
"That company has one of the characters in the book. I wanted him to be
wounded during the battle!" I smiled and said, "Looks like you just
found
out when it happened." It was a very enjoyable moment.
> From: Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> Subject: [LST] was Re: The GZG
> Digest V2 #2190 (Prioritizing targets in SG2 and Initiative card draw)
>
> >...Chris/Laserlight (who explained to Doug the difference...
>
> Unfair! You acknowledge his Laserlight-ness; you ignore my bestial
> nature?!?
Mea culpa! I actually intended to write Doug/Beast, but I got distracted
and missed it! My apologies Doug/Beast!
> From: Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
> Subject: Re: Initiative - was RE: Piquet
>
> One idea I had with Battle Masters, which has a similar card deck, was
to
> separate each side's cards, drawing from each partial deck in turn.
(Note:
> if this already came up in the discussion, my apologies.)
For some reason I'm having problems figuring this out. You mean you
shuffle each player's deck, split out some cards (so you now have a
total
of four decks), and then draw only from a player's partial deck? I'm not
sure how this would change things in Piquet. I'm probably just being
dense today.
> On another question: overwatch, in most games I've seen, is fairly
> restrictive. Would folks prefer it restricted rather than simple a
held
> action?
People have tried systems where an entire action is held back, to be
used
any way they want. The argument against this is that it usually lets the
unit with the held action react too much to the enemy. It doesn't
represent realistic overwatch, where a unit is ordered to stay put and
fire at targets of opportunity. It gives the unit a little too much
flexibility.
I don't know if this is a truly valid argument against it, or if it's
just from a preconceived bias. Certainly just allowing a unit to hold an
activation or an action is a simple solution. In some ways it may even
be
more realistic. Would an overwatching squad just sit still and fire if
an
entire brigade were bearing down on it, or would it take the opportunity
to run? This is the sort of thing that is decided after playtesting.
> From: Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: The GZG
Digest
> V2 #2190 (Prioritizing targets in SG2 and Initiative card draw)
>
> Making it an optional rule is a great idea. That way
> if you find that one of your opponents always uses the
> most gamey choice you can introduce it back into the
> rule set and see what they think.
Thank you. As I mentioned, I never had much of a problem leaving it
optional. So, consider that idea "well playtested".
---
Allan Goodall http://www.hyperbear.com
agoodall@att.net agoodall@hyperbear.com
Cogita tute - think for yourself