Human-Nets-Request@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles McGrew, The Moderator) (10/08/85)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Monday, 7 Oct 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: Query - WG9.1 Conference Planned, Computers and People - Working at Home, Computer Networks - Logical Email Addressing (4 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Oct 1985 15:27-EDT From: Benjamin.Pierce@G.CS.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: WG9.1 Conference Planned (IFIP) Does anyone have any more specifics on the conference? I'm particularly interested in paper submission deadlines and desired range of topics, official language(s), how many and what sort of people are expected to attend (scientists, engineers, students, managers, etc.), and what kind of mix is expected of east and west block attendees. I've written to Dr. Muhlenberg, but mail to East Berlin is notoriously slow. Benjamin C. Pierce ------------------------------ Date: Mon 7 Oct 85 11:26:07-MDT From: William G. Martin <WMartin@SIMTEL20.ARPA> Subject: Home computing work Here's something of interest from Info-Hams that I thought Human-Netters would find worthwhile: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: :: :: T H E W 5 Y I R E P O R T :: :: :: :: D i t s & B i t s :: :: :: :: Vol 7 #18 -- 9/15/85 :: :: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Up to the minute news from the worlds of amateur radio, personal computing and emerging electronics. While no guarantee is made, information is from sources we believe to be reliable. May be reproduced providing credit is given to The W5YI Report. [Extract:] o Independent Computer Cottagers ------------------------------ Do you have some sort of computer linked business "on the side"... maybe even full time... that you do from your home? If so, you might want to consider being a member of AEC... the Association of Electronic Cottagers formed in January 1985. Formed by Paul and Sarah Edwards of (677 Canyon Drive), Sierra Madre, California (91024), AEC is designed to support the growing number of people who work from their home with personal computers. The Association of Electronic Cottagers is partly a support group for the cottage industries made possible using personal computers and partly a rights watchdog for home workers. Members of AEC can obtain marketing assistance, business consultation and other services... also access up-to-the-minute news affecting their interests through a monthly newsletter, an online hotline, bulletin boards, electronic conferences and private databases available through the CompuServe Information Service. AEC evolved out of an international computer network... the Work-At-Home special interest group (SIG) of CompuServe, an interactive database for computer users. The Edwards' began this SIG because they wanted to meet other entrepreneurs and believed others had the same need. Labor unions see working at home and telecommuting as a threat. Local bureaucrats, using zoning laws, have put some home computer workers out of business. AEC has put together an Electronic Bill of Rights which, among other things, asks that legislatures make no laws prohibiting freedom to work in one's home... when that work does not interfere with neighbor's enjoyment of their own homes and communities. The Edwards' are the authors of several books on working from home with a personal computer. Paul is an attorney... Sarah holds a Masters degree in Social Work. Their 18-year old son is an engineering student at UCLA. [End this issue] ------------------------------ Date: Wednesday, 2 Oct 1985 20:09:58-PDT From: goutal%parrot.DEC@decwrl.ARPA Subject: logical email addressing I must confess to having been out of touch for a while, and so have not tracked all the latest proposals in this area. I think, however, that I have a little tidbit to contribute. First, I *am* a technical type, so am not put off by horrible long strings of apparent nonsense -- occasionally. However, I do get tired of typing all that stuff every time I want to send a message to my boss or to my next-cubby neighbor, which I do a couple dozen times a day. I also don't like to have to remember arcane alphabet soup when I want to send a message to an old friend to whom I haven't sent something in a while. Still, I can quite understand that that's what the computer needs in order to do the job I want it to do for me. My way around this is with logical names. The phrase "logical name" must mean different things on different systems, but I'm sure they usually amount to something like "a name you can invent to mean something else, and have the system remember your definition". So, just as I use DAT$SLRR to mean the full file spec for an ISAM file on short-line railroads, and LNK$LIBRARY to refer to my private library of runtime object code modules, and HLP: to refer to the directory where help texts, user guides, and the like are found, in like fashion I use $JOE as the address of my office mate (his username, which is his last name, is a little hard on the fingers), $D for my boss, $B for a colleague across the building, $HUM for the moderator/distributor/whatever of Humanettes Digest, and just net.rr for the railroad newsgroup on Usenet. It is also common for system managers to define system-wide logical names for use by MAIL, either to reroute incoming mail for departed users, or to make it easier for local users to send mail to complex addresses, such as gateways or distribution list moderators. I've never seen this done with "group logical names", but there's no reason it couldn't be done. VMSmail, at least, just uses the regular VMS logical-name facility, and all this falls out. Basically, I'm just using the logical-name facility in the operating system as a sort of localized, personalized name server. This buys me a fair bit until the real thing comes along. It would be interesting to see if operating-system-dependent logical-name facilities could be subsumed under network-wide name services. This would mean that my collection of handy names for people would be directly connected to the ever-more-global tree of ever-less-handy adddresses for them, in a more-or-less invisible way. I'll be interested to see how the "TO" address of this message shows up in the digest. All I gave it was "$HUM". The commands in the background that make this possible are: $ Define $HUM USENET::"""HUMAN-NETS@RUTGERS.ARPA""" $ Define USENET "RHEA::DECWRL::" By the way, within the DEC domain, addresses are nowhere near as complicated as they are in, say, uucp-land. A simple nodename::username pair will send your message winging its way directly to that user on that node, in a network of thousands of node around the globe. (I gather this is essentially true in the ARPA domain, although I don't believe the set of nodes is as large.) -- Kenn Goutal ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-parrot!goutal (or however we say it this month) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1985 16:34 EDT From: Jon Solomon <JSOL%BUCS20%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> To: BostonU SysMgr <root%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> Subject: Towards a more 'human' method of e-mail addressing (SOLVED!) Well, Barry. There are several problems with that addressing scheme that need to be worked out: Does every e-mail user now *have* to have a phone number associated with it? I can imagine every student at every university given a special phone number associated with their name for the purpose of receiving network mail. Would the reverse always apply (i.e. if I know someone's E-mail address, do I then know their phone number?) What about unlisted numbers? Phone numbers are typically assigned in technically-feasable methods. It would, for example, be impossible in the current environment for me to get JON-SOLOMON as a telephone number (notice that I am conveniently 10 digits long) (note: This may change as we run out of area codes, but unless I lived in area code (JON) and had prefix 765 (SOL), *and* they hadn't assigned SOL-OMON (765-6666) to someone else, it would at the very least be very expensive (ever check into how much a foreign exchange costs? And my local calling area would be most likely far away from my home (if I recall, 617-765 is not in the Boston Metropolitan area). I have considered 800-SOLOMON, which is about $100/month excluding usage... You mention in the same breath that children spell things wrong, and sometimes write letters backwards, *and* that they use the phone system properly. I can remember back when I first started using the phone system. I was about 11 or 12, just entering puberty. I started by remembering my relatives phone numbers (I still know my number from back then..). But, you and I are not typical of 12 year olds. We were both interested in the phone network. Also, by the time you and I were 12, we both probably knew how to spell Massachusetts without printing backwards. Younger children (first learning to write, for example) would probably have the same trouble with a dial or touch tone phone as they would have had with a pen or pencil. If I remember correctly, kids of those age are mainly taught how to dial 0 when there is an emergency and to tell the operator what is wrong. Anyway, none of this really excludes using the telephone numbering scheme as a standard for mail addresses, it just points out that just like the scheme we use now, it has flaws. Cheers, --JSol ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Oct 85 20:58:53 edt From: BostonU SysMgr <root%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> To: jsol@bostonu.CSNET Subject: Re: Towards a more 'human' method of e-mail addressing Subject: (SOLVED!) >Does every e-mail user now *have* to have a phone number associated >with it? No, you missed my point, only machines need to have 'phone-numbers', this is a scheme for host-naming, my address in this scheme might become: bzs@617-353-2780 w/in America bzs@353-2780 w/in (617) bzs@3-2780 w/in BU or even "Barry Shein"@one-of-the-above (the user name is undefined in this scheme, current conventions could apply) of course, your mailer has a line in it's startup file like: host bu-cs 617-353-2780 so you can send bzs@bu-cs if you like. As a matter of fact, for all the mail system would care you could have: host mit-mc 617-353-2780 and sending to bzs@mit-mc would just go to bu-cs, it's a silly example, but it does show how trivial 'conveniences' could be built in if you prefer and how ambiguity is solved, no matter what a machine likes to be called (R2D2, BILBO etc) is up to individuals, for all mail delivery it must end up with an envelope containing the phone number on it. > What about unlisted numbers? I assume this is a more important objection presuming your first (mistaken) assumption that each user has a #, I presume that each machine (only) has a number. Obviously for organizational machines this could be the same as their 'front-desk' (note: the phone number is only a naming convention and does not imply the number is ever actually called or a phone is involved anywhere in the actual transport of mail, IT'S JUST A NAMING CONVENTION WITH A NAMING AUTHORITY (ie. the phone company.) In the case of personal computers, where you do not want, say, a phone that rings in your house, published, there are obvious solutions: 1. If you don't like to interact with people stay off the net. (sorry, but it is a consideration.) Only use public machines for your mail. 2. Buy a phone just for your PC and remove the ringer (privacy costs) Maybe you did this already for a modem. 3. Set up something with someone to feed you indirectly so only that site knows your true number (ie. an alias on that site.) 4. Use your office phone, a friend's office phone, a pay-phone number out in the hall or maybe just choose an 'impossible' number (like 123-3434) and hope no one else does. The point is this is a special case, judging by the number of phone numbers that remain in the white pages one has to assume this is not a universal problem, as I said, privacy costs, you will have to use a scheme to hide your real number. >Phone numbers are typically assigned in technically-feasable methods. >It would, for example, be impossible in the current environment for >me to get JON-SOLOMON as a telephone number I assume this objection is resolved by the realization that hosts have phone numbers, not users. The use of aliases reduces the nuisance, besides, is your home phone # JON-SOLOMON?? Why is that ok? (or more to the point, in what way is this worse?) >You mention in the same breath that children spell things wrong, >and sometimes write letters backwards, *and* that they use the phone >system properly. My point wasn't so much to devise a system small children can use, only to point out that a lot of people (even children) can manage to use the phone system and there seems to be a general feeling that the current various host naming conventions confuse all but the most ardent mail hackers (and even them.) >Cheers, >--JSol -Barry Shein, Boston University ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1985 22:51 EDT From: Jon Solomon <JSOL%BUCS20%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> To: BostonU SysMgr <root@bu-cs.bunet> Subject: Towards a more 'human' method of e-mail addressing (SOLVED!) Well, the current domain scheme is fairly simple to understand, except that it uses brain damaged boundaries. EDU COM GOV ORG MIL Stupid, who else but ARPANET people would understand why they chose these. Fortunately, I believe the International standards will come up with something better... *country* *names*! US UK FR CAN etc... What I'd love is "Jon Solomon"@BUCS20.BU.MA.US That would be REALLY simple, and would be basically a rearrangement of what we are already having imposed on us. Directory assistance? Why not have "General Delivery"? That's what most people are doing. Send mail to BBN.COM? Berkeley.EDU? PURDUE.EDU? HARVARD.EDU? LCS.MIT.EDU? Same idea. Have a host who'se name is the same as their domain. It accepts mail for everyone in the domain and knows how to forward. Much easier than (617) 623-JSOL (which *is* my phone number). No, I couldn't get JON-SOLOMON, or 617-SOLOMON, but that didn't stop me from trying. The Post Office, and the Telephone company basically do the same thing different ways. They get messages to people. Both methods have been around for quite some time, the post office much longer. If you go adopt a telephone based system, there will probably be some bureaucrat who want's to intervene. Look at FTS, the Autovon, TELEX (with it's brain damaged area codes), and Digitals DTN! Flame off. --JSol ------------------------------ End of HUMAN-NETS Digest ************************