3.5nd dnd – Is there an errata that alters the effect of the metamagic exploit of the irresistible spells of Kingdoms of Kalamar?

So the metamagic exploit known as Fate irresistible comes from a countryside setting known as KoK (Kingdoms of Kalamar), a relatively unknown setting. If you have metamagic prowess Envelop the Wall and Maximize Spell and have a Spellcaster level 7 or higher, you can qualify for this feat.

Irrestible Spell has the following advantages:

Spells you cast that normally allow a save throw do not allow a save throw. An irresistible spell uses a spell location 4 times higher than the actual spell level.

A friend of mine says there was an errata about it that changes the effect so that it adds a +10 to the domain controller instead. Does anyone know where this errata can be found or is called?

I can not for life find a reference to that.

In Gmail, sending emails via Fastmail's SMTP protocol alters the header From:

In the Gmail settings, under "Accounts and Import", I added a new email address under the "Send mail as" setting. This email address using my own domain, foobar@example.com, lets say. I've set up Gmail for sending via SMTP servers from Fastmail.

This domain has been configured on Fastmail. The MX records were defined and I added the alias, asking Fastmail to transfer all emails to my @ gmail.com address.

Receiving mail at foobar@example.com works as expected, the mail appears in my Gmail inbox. Sending from the Gmail web interface as foobar@example.com also works. However, the recipient receives the email as it comes from my email address @ fastmail.com. How can I solve this problem?

differential equations – The increase of MaxExtraPrecision arbitrarily alters the numerical result

I'm trying to confirm that a function $$f$$ satisfies a particular differential equation of the type $$D f = 0$$, for a differential operator $$D$$. I put $$Df$$ as `Diffeq` in Mathematica and I tried to check if that gives zero for any numerical value of the variables $$f$$ depend on. I wrote

``````NOT[Difeqx /. x -> 3/4 /. y -> 1/5 , 500]
``````

"N :: meprec: internal precision limit \$ MaxExtraPrecision = 50.` reached during the evaluation [the function]
Outside[1]= -1,214057 * 10 ^ -613 –
6.579195 * 10 ^ -614 I ".

I then used

``````Block[{\$MaxExtraPrecision = 550}, N[Difeqx /. x -> 3/4 /. y -> 1/5, 500]]
``````

and I came back
"N :: meprec: internal precision limit \$ MaxExtraPrecision = 550.` reached during evaluation [the function]
Outside[2]= 4.131621 * 10 ^ -1089 +
2.022562 * 10 ^ -1089 I "

The numerical result changes (and becomes smaller for this particular case) as I increase MaxExtraPrecision.

The question:
From the different numerical results obtained, I can conclude with some uncertainty that indeed $$Df = 0$$ (or Difeq = 0) is satisfied. But, can I clarify? How can I be safer than it actually gives zero?

P.S. I do not think that `Chop`, which returns zero, makes it safer that the result is precisely zero.