cc:Mail Link to SMTP Undeliverable Message

Admin-GTESUPH1 admin-gtesuph1_at_gtesuphub1 at
Fri Jul 18 17:29:29 PDT 1997

Message is undeliverable.
Reason: Unable to access cc:Mail Post office.
	Please retry later.
Original text follows:

-------------- next part --------------
Received: from by (ccMail Link to SMTP R6.00.02)
	; Fri, 18 Jul 97 17:39:16 -0600
Return-Path: <root at>
Received: from [] by
  (SMTPD32-3.03) id A24B17E8010C; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:46:35 -0500
Received: (from majordom at localhost)
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA31827
	for ansteorra-outgoing; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:07:19 -0500
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA31824
	for <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:07:17 -0500
Received: from [] ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27459
	for <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>; Fri, 18 Jul 1997 17:07:40 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199707182207.RAA27459 at>
Subject: Re: cooking w/alcohol  (was: BoD ruling)
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 97 17:10:04 -0500
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0, March 15, 1997
From: Dottie Elliott <macdj at>
To: "Ansteorra" <ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
Resent-From: <agulick at>
Resent-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 97 17:46:39 EST
Resent-To:  agulick at ccnet

Lori Jones 7/17/97 9:06 PM

>When I say there are groups who broke the rule, I was sticking to 
>my subject and meant regarding the purchase of alcohol in minute 
>quantities for use in cooking. I know, if you want to get technical, 
>you could say that selling feasts which include dishes prepared 
>with alcohol is re-selling the alcohol.  However, as most dishes 
>*cooked* with alcohol have little or no alcohol content after 
>cooking, it would eliminate the problem of liability.  I mean, no 
>one is likely to leave a feast legally intoxicated from eating, say, 
>beef marinated in wine. 

I doubt the Texas state laws would see alcohol used in cooking as 
'reselling' alcohol.  However, if the state laws DO include this, I doubt 
that my personally buying the alcohol used as an ingredient in cooking a 
menu item at a feast instead of the SCA would skirt the laws of 
'reselling' since folks would still be buying the feast. I think I will 
find out how the Texas laws really apply here. 

I do not know the history behind the reason Ansteorra choose a policy of 
"no purchase of alcohol with sca funds for ANY reason, including 
cooking". I would like to though.  Many, many period recipes require wine 
as an ingredient.  These are good recipes, Pears in Wine Sauce for 
instance. Since my choices for period recipes to serve at feasts will be 
limited I would like to know the reason why.


More information about the Ansteorra mailing list