From owner-fam@oss.sgi.com Mon Nov 29 19:21:38 1999 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:21:28 -0800 Received: from sgi.SGI.COM ([192.48.153.1]:28271 "EHLO sgi.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:21:03 -0800 Received: from rlyeh.engr.sgi.com ([150.166.37.203]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id TAB02587 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:27:47 -0800 (PST) mail_from (rusty@rlyeh.engr.sgi.com) Received: (from rusty@localhost) by rlyeh.engr.sgi.com (980427.SGI.8.8.8/960327.SGI.AUTOCF) id TAA32608 for fam@oss.sgi.com; Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:26:22 -0800 (PST) From: "Rusty Ballinger" Message-Id: <9911291926.ZM110545@rlyeh.engr.sgi.com> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 19:26:21 -0800 X-Face: #)4}U4e`O6YEe%oBzE}>ycmT!Xt?Myiqo~|p3Wh'UuQ[N7)&4\4?8:1n)bmPX]b@#k94%!VojpODdmk:sCr1b\-aXD&P:wjBqupMB:ag6}BwVseJZM@K{$E|0J9}&,Rpdg{&N4/Y8&PTm6>|r[,gI2T*qN!`AZhl>Bdy7JR`dDvP(/pz.}?Q@dg':mlV`RX51Z_ZG?Gta|Q!iA[MaOh Reply-To: rusty@sgi.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.3 08feb96 MediaMail) To: fam@oss.sgi.com Subject: test Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-fam@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;fam-outgoing This is a test message to fam@oss.sgi.com. In general, most critics have found this message to make for rather long-winded and dull reading, with few interesting characters and a somewhat predictable ending. Indeed, many readers never bother to read the entire message, as they quickly realize that its only real content was summarized in the opening sentence. The few who persevere all the way to the end are typically disappointed, and are left with the feeling that they've somehow been cheated out of several minutes of their lives. Learn to read faster, I tell them! "But you typed all that?" they ask. The answer is yes, but if you wash enough malted milk balls down with Pepsi, you can type pretty damn fast. Faster than you can think, as it turns out, which explains this message's lack of substantive content. --Rusty