BSE Digest V1 #8

From: kerry@io.com (Kerry Harrison)

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 1994 22:49:59 +0000

From kerry@io.com Thu Nov  3 16:49:08 1994
Received: from localhost
	by pentagon.io.com (8.6.5/PERFORMIX-0.9/08-16-92)
	id QAA26153; Thu, 3 Nov 1994 16:46:34 -0600
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 16:46:34 -0600
Message-Id: <199411032246.QAA26153@pentagon.io.com>
From: owner-bse-digest
To: bse-digest@pentagon.io.com
Subject:   BSE Digest V1 #8
Reply-To: bse-list@io.com
Errors-To: owner-bse-digest
Precedence: bulk

BSE Digest               Thursday, 3 November 1994     Volume 01 : Number 008

In this issue:

+       [none]
+       Ships for New Players
+       Retief Returns
+       Re:
+       BSE Upgrade Supplement revisited

See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the bse-list
or bse-digest mailing lists.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 21:05:56 CST
Subject: [none]

Kerry,
There's some still unfinished business with this, so the storyline is a 1 wk
transit to Jax, then another Imperial transport to T-snit (yep, more than 1
reason behind that), followed by a xfer to a WCE transport.  This'll give the
time needed for loose ends to be tied.... also, who knows, there might be an
unfortunate "accident" along the way.  Or perhaps, because there are a lot of
"strong feelings" in the ISP about this, a low ranking ISP officer might
crack under the pressure and go transport hunting..... or maybe it'll be one
of the ISP marines guarding the parolee (and the marine, perhaps a Pvt.
Oswald, is promptly arrested for the deed)..... lots of possible outcomes.
<g>

Whoops... my freind here says that i'm starting to get a mischievious look.
<g>

Steve

------------------------------

From: pkrauskopf@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 1994 01:18:03 -0500
Subject: Ships for New Players

Hi Thad and Pete,

As you may recall, the format for Construct Ship is:

CS (position ID)

However, this doesn't work for new players, since they don't have a
ship yet.  On the other hand, I don't want to wait two weeks or a month
to get the ship ID back so that I can assign it to a new player.  Should I
just place the name of the new player under the special action secton of
the colony turncard?

Thanks!
Phil K.

------------------------------

From: RIPLord@aol.com
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 04:09:01 -0500
Subject: Retief Returns

Of course, they could leak the transport name and route to the RIP as well!

------------------------------

From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 1994 12:01:55 EST
Subject: Re:

Steve,

"Chill"...it was a joke.

I'll see if I still have the file around - does this mean you never read it?

Be seeing you,

Brad Braun
btb4@lehigh.edu
///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
    "We are here to rescue Bob the Baboon from the clutches of the evil
    shampoo and lipstick overlords!"
    -Nietzsche
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

------------------------------

From: Kerry Harrison <kerry@io.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 16:46:25 -0600 (CST)
Subject: BSE Upgrade Supplement revisited

This file is addendum and errata file to the bseupgrade.txt file dealing with
rules changes to Beyond the Stellar Empire. The things contained herein will
be incorporated into the bseupgrade.txt file shortly and an amended
bseupgrade.bse file will be provided.

Some clarifications, amplifications and additional thoughts from the conference
and playership in general:

On the political rules:

I inadvertently left out the section on Posting and APP costs for the same.

Posting an individual position can be done any AFF at a cost of 2 APPs. Groups
that are pursuing individual posted positions may chase them wherever they
like, but they will have to deal with the government in question when the
position is found. For instance, the FET posts a GTT ship for robbing an
outpost located in the Periphery. The FET suspect that the GTT ship has fled
to the Trans-Hole and is operating in WCE space now. The FET can, of course,
go ahead and find the GTT ship in WCE space and destroy it or whatever. What
might be a better idea, though, is to first secure the WCE's blessing for doing
so, since the events upon which the posting took place occurred outside the
WCE's space and the WCE might not recognize the FET posting. If the FET did
not seek the WCE's permission beforehand, they may find themselves in a bad
position vis a vis the WCE. But, again, that's up to you guys to sort out.

Posting an entire affiliation without a Declaration of War can only be done by
governmental positions and when done the general posting is only effective in
that government's soveriegn space. The purpose of general posting is to allow
governments to police their space effectively without constantly being at war.
An example of this would be the IMP and RIP. The IMP want to keep the RIP out
of their space, so they can post all RIP. If the IMP wished to pursue the RIP
outside Imperial space, they could either DW or post the specific position. For
companies, the general posting is tantamount to a DW, so they must issue a DW
in order to to accomplish this. However, companies CAN target the posted list
of the particular government's space they operating in without a DW or a
general posting of their own. An example of this would be if the SSL wanted to
respect the IMP posted list and target ALL IMP POSTED. They could do this
without worrying about the "rogue" implications of unsanctioned combat. General
postings cost 15 APPs.

All governments are deemed to be "in control" of the systems they have under
their control as of now for purposes of the war rules. So, it is not necessary
to satisfy the requirements of system control in the war rules, they are deemed
to have been satisfied. To control systems in the future, compliance with the
war rules will be necessary.

The pol rules state that all adjustments to the APS structure must be mutually
acceptable. This is going to be changed. All upgrades in APS structures must be
bilateral. Downgrades can be done unilaterally.

The pol rules imply that mutinies occur AFTER an unsanctioned action has been
done. This is incorrect. The ALR check happens BEFORE the action is attempted,
so if you fail it, the crew will mutiny before the action takes place.

There seems to be some confusion on Declarations of War. Declarations of War
are uni-lateral, only the declaring side must pay APPs. The other side does
NOT have to issue a Declaration of War as well. The sides are considered to be
at war when one side makes the declaration.

A suggestion has been made that positions involved in unsanctioned combat be
given a new "rogue" three letter code <"ROG" or "RGE">, rather than just IND.
This would be identical to being IND, except that other positions could target
rogue positions more easily rather than targetting "All IND". I think this is
a pretty good idea. Thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Questions have been raised as to whether we will allow players to have IND and
AFF positions at the same time. The answer is yes, we intend to do that at this
time, unless there is overwhelming opposition to it.

RIP and non-RIP players have been asking how the political rules affect the
RIP. The short answer is that the RIP is a special organization and are
essentially exempt from the normal political rules. The RIP need to have a free
hand in picking targets and such and should not be constrained by the limits of
the political rules. The RIP have a hard enough life as it is <g>. So, a
special version of political rules will be supplied to the RIP regarding how
the political rules affect them.

On the rank structure, I have already heard a number of suggestions to refine
the system as it is stated in the rules file. I will be taking all suggestions
into consideration, including those regarding the hull size limits, before
putting the final system together. Please feel free to forward your comments.

Some research points:

1) On the topic of patents. This will be left in your hands. Anything we would
do on this topic would necessarily fall into the "You can't do this" category
and we are not into that. Researchers MAY by happenstance be researching the
same thing at the same time. Reverse engineering does not apply to things being
simultaneously researched. However, once an item is created, to duplicate it
you need to reverse engineer it. Governments can institute whatver patent laws
they want, but it will be up to them to craft them in such a way so as to make
them enforcable.

2) At some point in the near future, I will be sitting down to create a new NPC
position, which will be similar to the STC, but for research. This organization
will exist as a bunch of NPC researchers and will function to release general
information on research topics and will give us an in-game way of disseminating
information of general scientific interest.

On Player communications and the CPT.

1) We will be doing the CPT on a bi-monthly basis at start. Players may submit
anything they like for inclusion in the CPT. Also, I would like players who are
doing interesting things on their turns to include a note whether you would
like your actions reported in the CPT. Basically, we will be looking for CPT
material as we process turns but we do not want to report information you deem
to be secret or whatever. So please let us know on your turns if you what you
are doing can be reported or not. Also, since we actively monitor the various
information services, we may use any public posts we see there as a basis for
CPT stories as well. If anyone wants to do the CPT privately, just give us a
shout. In the past, the CPT has been published sporadically at best, and the
bottom line is we want to change that as we view newsletters like the CPT as
vital to the health of the game.

2) Tony Filiato suggested bringing back the old 3x5 card system for players to
send in game messages to one another. I am not sure that is feasible from our
point of view, insofar as the mechanics of turn processing have changed
radically since the days of the 3x5 card system. But we do think that in
principle he is right, there should be some sort of in-game system for players
to get in touch with one other before initiating outside-the-game contact. We
could definitely add EMail addresses to the address received when a player
issues the Request Contact order already in the game system. That might help
the situation. Also, the CPT classified section could be used for this purpose
as well.

On the conversion to the new system:

Some general thoughts:

1) With regard to ranks, we could go through and cause all starcaptains to be
promoted to appropriate rank for their ship, or we could just grandfather in
existing ships and only apply the rank structure to new ships and upgrades. We
would prefer the grandfathering, but it may be more realistic to go with
promoting as necessary, and go from there. Thoughts? Also, we want people to
remember that their freighter captains can be promoted and serve as sort of a
reserve officer corps. You can transfer your freighter captains to warships as
needed. So don't neglect the promotion of freighter captains. Also, if players
want to donate their captains to other players, that's fine with us. If you
transfer a ship to somebody else, if you want to keep the character of the
captain, you will have to make some other arrangement to provide an appropriate
captain.

Also, a suggestion was made that captains be allowed to be dropped off at
colonies, in order to have a reserve supply of officers. We will look into ways
to do this, we don't have any fundamental problems with it at first glance.

2) With regard to colonies,  all colony governors will have to state what type
of colonies they want to be. Colonies can convert to SPCs, but they should have
to pay the conversion costs outlined, should they not? PDs can also send a list
for their AFFs ungoverned colonies stating what sort of facility they should
be. Any colonies not provided for will be assigned a type by us. Generally, we
will base this on the set up of the colony.

We would like to mention that if you choose to become a research colony, we
will allow you to convert some of your factories to CRLs. Also, existing RPs
can be converted to CRLs on a MU for MU basis.

3) A few people have stated that the new colony rules will destroy their
colony's usefulness because their morale can not be brought up to the needed
level and there is insufficient time to research a solution. Basically, they
feel that something needs to be done immediately by us to address so that their
colonies can survive <i.e. bridge the gap between now and when research starts
addressing some of these problems by itself>. OK.

Pete and I talked at length today about the man hour problems and basically
decided to rework it. We will drop the costs for mines, farms and complexes.
Structural maintenance will remain as is. We will reword the colony types to
say that production colonies can allocate UP TO 30% for CRLs, research colonies
can go up to 30 % for factories and SPCs can be up to 10% for CRLs. You will
issue an order setting this number and that will be the percentage available
for research or production as the case may be. Unused man hours will filter to
the private sector as they do now. I will revise the rules file accordingly. I
think this can be considered the final rule on this topic. You will still WANT
a high morale to have a kick butt colony, but a reasonable morale will still
allow you to get most mundane things done. We will probably also tinker with
the morale returns on complexes to make them more worthwhile.

Now considering the above, we are more comfortable saying, do the research if
you want to get more morale, since it won't be as bad at the start. Research
can tinker with all sorts of stuff from drugs, to better complexes, to reducing
your birth rate <or stopping it>, or whatever. Since your colonies will not be
as burdened as they were under the original proposal. If you still think that
something else should be done, please let me know.

Lastly on this topic, we can PROBABLY increase the number of slots available
for items to be given out to colonists with the GC order. Don't forget that you
will get +1 morale for each slot filled over the first, as stated in the rules
file. So at the very least you will get a morale point regardless of the
amounts you are giving out since this in addition to the morale benefit of the
item you are giving out.

I would like to note that a few people love the idea of the private sector
generating stellars, but don't think it produces enough, or that they won't
have enough man hours for it. The answer to this is that you need to make the
choice here whether the private sector will be lucrative or not. You can untool
your factories and CRLs and all the man hours will automatically go into the
private sector. That's a choice you have to make. We don't really want colonies
to operate at maximim PLUS produce a horde of stellars. The idea is that you
can do some of each, if you like, or you can maximize one or the other.

On the depot colonies:

Virtually everyone seems to love the idea of the depot colonies. The depot
colonies will be located in key systems. They will be strictly neutral <run by
the STC or some similar neutral group>. They will buy virtually all goods at
some reasonable price and they will sell a lot of common and special goods
<particularly morale type items>, at a reasonable price. The colonies will be
serviced from time to time by the Inner Empire Freighter Fleet, which will
actually come in and pick up and drop off items to the depots. The purpose of
the depots is to give everybody a fall back position on places to buy and sell
goods, as well as another way to inject new stellars into the game. Hopefully
some stagnant stockpiles can be sold at the depot colonies as well as a way of
getting rid of unwanted "stuff" and raise cash.

On mining:

Some people love the caps, some people hate 'em <g>. I guess this is to be
expected. One thing I am leaning towards changing is that the diminishing
return of outposts is doubled. This had to do with man hour costs to run mines,
and since that is out, I can relieve that aspect of outposts. After due
consideration, I think the caps will work so I am leaving them alone. Of
course, there is nothing to stop you from doing research to try to enhance your
mines' production. Of course, if you find yourself in a position where your
mines far exceed the caps, let us know and we can help to bring you in under
the caps.

Another morale idea:
Kerry Harrison suggested a weekly morale benefit based on the number of ships
that land in your port that week. I think this is a pretty good idea. His
proposal is as follows:

Colonies get a morale bonus whenever ships land at their starport, if the
ship's crew actually visits the colony's recreation complex the bonus is
doubled. If the same ship visits the same colony more than once within 4 weeks,
neither the colony nor the ship get a morale bonus.

Colony             Effect to Colony
======             ================
Class 1-2          +4 bonus to morale
Class 3-4          +3 bonus to morale
Class 5-6          +2 bonus to morale
Class 7-8          +1 bonus to morale

Assuming we can program it, I see no reason not to add this or some variation
of it.

Also on man hours:

A clarification on structural maintenance, enclosed colonies need 1.25 the
number of man hours that open colonies would need, not 1.25*structural units.
Thus, if you need if an open colony needs 5,000 man hours for structural
maintenance, an enclosed colony would need 6,250.

4)     Concern has been expressed by some prospective returning players that
getting that old positions should not be given back to former players unless
ALL the former players can get their old positions back and that the current
players will be dismayed by the old players getting thier old positions back.
Some general thoughts on this:

a.     Not a single current player has balked at the thought of veteran players
getting their old positions back.

b.     Our read on the players we have talked to is that they REALLY want
players back in the game and don't really give a hoot what positions they play.

c.     A lot of positions held by former players are still in the game and it
is just a matter of giving them their positions back. This includes ship
positions as well as colony positions. In most cases, we don't have to create
new positions, they already exist.

d.     Some positions that used to be played by veteran players have changed
hands due to battles and so forth and are being actively run, so those
positions can't be stripped from active players and given to returning players,
unless the active players agree to giving the position up to a returning
player.

e.     Our position on this matter generally is based on what we have heard
from the players we have talked to. The position is that older veteran players
can get their positions and characters back, and/or that they should be given
tools in order to start working on what they want to do now perhaps based on
what they did in the past.

As I said, our main goal is to get players back in the game because this is
what the current players seem to want more than anything. Also, it goes without
saying that in order to keep BSE running, we have to attract new players,
veteran and brand new. So it is the best interest of players, RTG and the game
to accomodate veteran players as best we can, within reason.

On auto-boarding & auto-posting:

1)     In order to make piracy more feasible, we feel that auto-boarding should
be allowed. Auto-boarding is not as simple as it might seem.  Since I have some
experience with auto-boarding from the old days <and what a mess it can be for
the players and the GM>, I submit the following for your comments:

One of the fundamental things with auto-boarding is whether it happens on a
real time turn or a standing blockade. Real time turns are some what easier,
standing blockades are tough. With a real time turn, the player can submit
orders relating to the capture of the vessels, where as with a blockade, they
don't, since they are doing the engaging and capturing in between turns. In
order to do boarding actions, we must actually run turns for vessels doing
boarding, because thing are being transferred between boarder and boardee. On
real time actions, this is not too bad, because you are in mid turn and can use
contingent orders and stuff to indicate what you want to do. Further, on real
time turns, we can simply have the captured ships follow the attacking ships
away from the battle scene as far as it can before perhaps stopping due to
battle damage and so forth. On blockades, this gets a lot trickier. As I said,
a turn must be run on the boarding ship in order to do the boarding actions,
crew transfers, engine transfers and all that. Plus another turn must be run on
the boarded ship to move it. We will not write turns nor will we accept "run
this turn if this happens" turns.

One of other problems with auto boarding is that the ship(s) you capture by
this method must be provided for in some way in terms of crew, engines, etc. in
order to make it move. Further, you typically want to get it away from the
place where the battle took place, to avoid reprisals. Further, the ship must
be provided a captain of the appropriate rank.

So, in any case, Pete and I talked it over and here's what we want to do:

We see what you want to do as going in, derelicting the ship(s), and getting
it/them out of there, so we will do the following:

1. We will look at the towing rules <yes, the towing rules>. We will make it
feasible for vessels to be towed efficiently <including towing more than one
ship>.

2. After that is done, the scenario will be this:

If you are doing a real time attack, then you need to DERelict the target. One
or more of your ships should be configured for towing. You simply order the tow
ship(s) to tow away all DERelict ships and continue on with your movement,
after the battle. That way, you can board, repair, etc. at a safe location away
from the battle scene at your own leisure. You turn results will show what
sorts of ships you DERelicted so at that point you will have a much clearer
picture of what do next and you will be <hopefully> a fairly safe distance away
from the scene of the battle.

If you are doing a blockade hoping to catch moving ships and capture them, you
will need to have at least one towing ship moving through the blockade point
each week, basically doing what is described above. You would move through the
blockade point each week, and if any battles happen, you would be held up for
the battle. After the battle, presuming your side wins, the rest of the tow
ship's turn would be processed which would include orders to tow away any
DERelicts <presumably your own as well, but you can prioritize your towing with
contingent orders>.

I think this is a pretty clean solution to the problem. It does what you want
<get the derelicted ships out of there> while helping us by avoiding a mess of
possible processing foul ups on our part. We don't want to be put in a position
of having to make lots of decisions for you vis a vis contingent orders. This
way, you get the ships out of there and can decide what do withthem later,
including finding the right captain for the ship. Some problems would be, would
ships towing be able to jump with ships in tow? If they can't, it might then be
too easy to find them the next week.

Now, auto posting. Hmmmm. The theory here is that AFFs should not be able to
post people unless someone on the attacked ship survives the battle. Whether or
not I think this is correct is immaterial, because AFFs no longer go through a
GM review process for posting. If they want to post somebody, they can. AFFs
will have to make those decisions, have the necessary APPs to do it and deal
with whatever repercussions arise from the posting. This includes the
governmental AFFs setting standards for what constitutes "proof" for posting by
their government. We are out of the business of deciding who you can and can't
post. I hope this is one time where I can say "You do it" and you guys smile
rather than frown. With regard to unsanctioned combat, I can take out the
auto-posting of the ship and have the AFFs do it themselves, that's fine with
me. In any case, attempts at unsanctioned combat will result in a mutiny at
worst and a Rogue or IND designation at best.

A few people have suggested that ships that mutiny be turned over to the RIP or
some other AFF. This would include ships that mutiny due to a zero morale. This
is what was suppossed to happen in the first place, but was not rigorously
enforced. We will start enforcing this rule and will assign what ships will go
where and the percentages. We will not publicly disseminate this info, we will
keep it confidential so that it is not abused or manipulated.

On research <shudder>:

A suggestion was made to allow colonies to pool research points for projects.
Pete and I talked this over, and after several different permutations of the
idea, decided to let it stand the way it is. Here's why:

1.     We hope that a lot of really big colonies will choose to become research
colonies. As such, these colonies will be able to produce a lot of RPs by
themselves. There can still be a team effort because these colonies can now
choose to devote 100% of their man hours to research, leaving a lot of areas
where they will need help in terms of imported goods. Also, they can use the
help from their affiliation in acquiring the stellars necessary to produce the
final research product, etc. The team effort aspect of research is evident in
these other areas of support.

2.     From a GMing point of view, pooling research is not a good idea. It will
skew our scaling system for research. There are also other problems with it (as
I said, we went through a number of variations of the idea). In any case, the
point of it is moot to some extent, because research will be handled in such a
way that it will be doable by single colonies and pooling really is not
necessary.

Another topic on research is that we have decided to let completed feasibility
studies be undertaken by other colonies. This will add to the team concept for
research and also allow smaller research colonies to sell their feasibilities
for profit.

A GM note on research is that we want to encourage the research of things that
will give specific positions advantages. This type of thing includes new
training, ship modifications, or other abilities that would be inherent to the
position that acquires them. We feel this is the way to go for several reasons,
not the least of which are programming considerations in the short term. Also,
we would like to keep away from "second generation" versions of current items
and instead focus on ways to make the items better or more efficient in the
hands of certain positions. We would rather see new items be fairly unique.

On the new systems:

Yes, we will be designing and introducing new systems that will greatly expand
the area of play for BSE. The new systems will be attached to existing systems
in such a way as to prevent the influx of large ships into these areas. We
believe that the new systems will evolve into a playing area that is distinct
from the traditional systems and will give new and old players "virgin"
territory to explore and exploit without having to worry too much about the
power strugglkes and so forth that will doubtless be going on in the
traditional Periphery. We believe that these new systems will be very similar
to the BSE of 1981-1982 insofar as the traditional Periphery will become akin
to the "Inner Empire" in kind of the same way that the Inner Empire originally
impacted BSE in those early days. Our belief is that there are players who want
to play in both areas, and this is the best thing we can do to accomodate all
involved.

On outposts:

The change in the outpost requirements had to do with some of ther other
changes to colony operation. Since those changes have been amended, I see no
reason to change the outpost requirement. Therefore, we will leave it as it
currently is.

More advanced economic stuff:

Some great suggestions have been made regarding banking, the stock market and
other niceties to enhance the economic side of the game. Since these ideas are
more additions than anything else, we can go about them in a more leisurely
manner than the other rules changes <they are new things, not changes to
existing stuff>. Therefore, I will post what has been suggested to this point
and get some input from all on it over the next several weeks. Then we will see
what we can do with em. Thanks to Wayne Alexander especially on this topic.
There will be yet another file in the lib shortly that lists ideas that we have
heard so far on these topics.

On new ship designs:

Yes, new ship designs can be researched. However, due to the new rank
limitations there is an obvious hole in the current ship types in the 51-99
hull range. What we would like to do is accept designs for a new ship type in
this range of hull and allow all the shipbuilding affiliations to start
building it immediately. Future designs can be submitted as research.

On CRLs:

Each CRL is 200 MUs, requires 200 metals to build and 150 man hours to operate.
CRLs can be tooled and untooled like factories. Each CRL produces 1 RP per week
that it is tooled.

ERRATA & STUFF:

The upgrade file implies that factories produce 100 MUs a week. In fact,
factories produce 25 MUs a week and 100 MUs per MONTH.

Yes, Permanent Structures require maintenance. They are simply much cheaper to
build, except for the required jacium. Everybody, please remember that you only
have to maintenance for the amount of structures you are actually using. For
purpose of calculating this, it is easiest to use the following formulae:

For open colonies:        Population/10=Maintenace Man Hours
For enclosed colonies:    (Population/10)*1.25=Maintenance Man Hours

Well, I think that covers it for now. In the next couple of days, I will be
integrating all I have put forth above into the a new upgrade.bse file assuming
all goes well. The next upgrade.bse file will be the final draft of the
upgrade, so we are getting close. In any case, please EMail us directly with
any comments or additional suggestions. If this missive overlooked something
you have mentioned to me, please let me know. I tried to be as thorough as I
could going through all of my Email, but I have received well over 100 messages
in the last week, so it is possible I missed some stuff. If there are enough
things still needing to be discussed, I will delay the production of the final
draft until they have been disposed of.

Best of Luck to all. If what I have heard so far is any indicator, the "new"
BSE is going to be one hell of a ride for all concerned. I look forward to
getting all the new rules stuff nailed down so you can continue with your
quests, whatever they may be!

Thad Catone, Pete Dorman and all of us at RTG

------------------------------

End of BSE Digest V1 #8
***********************

To subscribe to bse-digest, send the command:

subscribe bse-digest

in the body of a message to "Majordomo@io.com".  If you want to
subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-bse-list":

subscribe bse-digest local-bse-list@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "bse-digest"
in the commands above with "bse-list".