Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: ccMail SMTPLINK Undeliverable Message
From: Postmaster@gatekeeper2.un.org (ccMail SMTPLINK)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 08:06:36 EST

User Surachai V. at UNESCAP4 is not defined

 Original text follows 
 ----------------------------------------------
Received: from gatekeeper6.un.org by mail-in.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01)
	; Thu, 12 Jun 97 08:06:33 EST
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: by gatekeeper6.un.org; id JAA14439; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:53:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us(192.147.236.1) by gatekeeper6.un.org via smap (3.2)
	id xma014435; Thu, 12 Jun 97 09:53:29 -0400
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA10306; Thu, 12 Jun 97 02:50:35 -0700
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA10300; Thu, 12 Jun 97 02:50:31 -0700
Received: by gatekeeper2.un.org; id FAA05347; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:56:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-in2.un.org(157.150.191.7) by gatekeeper2.un.org via smap (3.2)
	id xma005344; Thu, 12 Jun 97 05:56:35 -0400
Received: from ccMail by mail-in2.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01)
	id 9705128661.AA866120081; Thu, 12 Jun 97 05:54:41 EST
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 05:54:41 EST
From: Postmaster@gatekeeper2.un.org (ccMail SMTPLINK)
Message-Id: <9705128661.AA866120081@mail-in2.un.org>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: ccMail SMTPLINK Undeliverable Message
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us

User Surachai V. at UNESCAP4 is not defined

 Original text follows 
 ----------------------------------------------
Received: from gatekeeper5.un.org by mail-in2.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01)
	; Thu, 12 Jun 97 05:53:40 EST
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: by gatekeeper5.un.org; id AA048018602; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 05:43:22 -0400
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us(192.147.236.1) by gatekeeper5.un.org via smap (V3.1)
	id xma004593; Thu, 12 Jun 97 05:34:51 -0400
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA07382; Thu, 12 Jun 97 01:10:52 -0700
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA07376; Thu, 12 Jun 97 01:10:44 -0700
Received: from hp24.lrz-muenchen.de by sunsrv5.lrz-muenchen.de; Thu, 12 Jun 97 10:10:27 +0200
Received: by hp24.lrz-muenchen.de
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA039253027; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:10:27 +0200
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:10:26 +0200 (METDST)
From: Rainer Mueller <uh3b207@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de>
X-Sender: uh3b207@hp24.lrz-muenchen.de
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: Noncoated filter
In-Reply-To: <199706120543.WAA29261@axionet.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.HPP.3.91.970612100820.3902A-100000@hp24.lrz-muenchen.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us

Hello,

to save the reputation of the Hama company: I just come
from the dealer again, and he told me that the filter is
coated, but not multicoated. He said that it would not
make much of a difference to take the multicoated version,
because a polarization filter anyway absorbs at least half
of the light. What do you think?

Regards, Rainer