root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (10/03/85)
I sent something like this to Human-nets, I'll try here also for reactions: A SOLUTION TO MAIL ADDRESSING Ahem, I propose we adopt a system that seems to have worked quite well in the past, I suspect this is not original, but that has never stopped anyone from posting an opinion on this net before, I refuse to be the first. Why don't we just use PHONE NUMBERS? Yes PHONE NUMBERS, you heard me. They don't have to be modem numbers, but they should be real phone numbers (tho I guess there should be allowance for anything.) Before I try to justify this, an example: "Barry Shein"@617-353-2780 That's the # for the front desk at the computing center here, I don't care if I use my full name quoted or 'bzs' or 'root', not the issue here. If I am in the Boston area I can use: bzs@353-2780 and if I am at B.U. I can probably get away with: root@3-2780 Of course, my mailer has a simple list processor for aliasing hosts, so I have created a file with a line: host bu-cs 617-353-2780 And now if I like I can type: bzs@bu-cs KEEP READING! Ok, why? a) There is already a naming authority: TPC b) If I choose a real phone for my site it is guaranteed to be unique (I know, some phone phreak out there is already typing in a case that happened in Missoula in 1914 where two people had the same phone number) c) The defaults are well known (leave out an area code, it is local etc.) d) I CAN PROBABLY FIND OUT YOUR HOST ADDRESS BY DIALING (XYZ) 555-1212, especially if some reasonable convention for which phone in your organization should be used in general (at worst it's the same as now, you have to ask someone.) e) Even children (the lowest known form of life :-) can manage to use the phone system. f) By and large, through use of international codes, even international addressing has largely been solved. g) Large organizations can (and often do) have mnemonic phone numbers, if I want some info on new unix stuff I can probably try: unix@800-ATT-UNIX for example (or 800-ATT-UNIX!unix, that's not the issue!) I'M SERIOUS (get back here!) Anticipated objections: Strings of digits are not user-friendly: tell it to AT&T, neither is root@a.cs.bu.edu Do you mean use the phone system exclusively? no, just as a way to form names What about typos and 'wrong numbers'? what happens now that's so wonderful? What if AT&T changes it's numbering conventions, like going to 718 in the Queens/Brooklyn Area? you'll change also, you'll survive Who's going to act as the 'switch' for exchanges? who does now? this makes no attempt to propose how mail gets delivered or routed, just that it might provide a sane base on which to solve those problems You mean if I have a micro at home I just use my home #? why not? what if I don't want people to know my home number? I can't answer everything, stay off the net or arrange for only your feed to recognize some other number as a 'special' for you to publish, c'mon, this aint that tough. Or get a phone installed just for this and shut the ringer off, who cares really, privacy always costs. Does that mean an organization in the phone book could have something like: BOSTON UNIVERSITY ... Computer Science 353-8919 E-MAIL 353-8919 Why not? Won't the phone company object? ask the phone company, I doubt it. Ok, what's the catch? It's too obvious, that's not what mail addressing is all about. -Barry Shein, Boston University
news@stc.UUCP (10/15/85)
In article <695@bu-cs.UUCP> root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > phone installed just for this and shut the ringer > off, who cares really, privacy always costs. > What a repulsive attitude! Why not go back to net.cia or wherever you came from. (Soviet Russia?)
gjerawlins@watdaisy.UUCP (Gregory J.E. Rawlins) (10/19/85)
In article <641@stc-b.stc.UUCP> news@stc.UUCP (Network news system) writes: >In article <695@bu-cs.UUCP> root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >> [very short comment about privacy] > What a repulsive attitude! Why not go back to net.cia > or wherever you came from. (Soviet Russia?) Dear Person, I think you owe Mr. Shein a sincere, net-wide apology. His article was closely reasoned and suggestive; your comment on a very minor part of it was far more than it merited. Thank You. gregory rawlins. -- -- gjerawlins%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Gregory J. E. Rawlins gjerawlins@waterloo.csnet gjerawlins@watmath.uucp Dept. CS, U. Waterloo
news@stc.UUCP (10/22/85)
In article <7456@watdaisy.UUCP> gjerawlins@watdaisy.UUCP (Gregory J.E. Rawlins) writes: >In article <641@stc-b.stc.UUCP> news@stc.UUCP (Network news system) writes: >>In article <695@bu-cs.UUCP> root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: >>> [very short comment about privacy] >> What a repulsive attitude! Why not go back to net.cia >> or wherever you came from. (Soviet Russia?) > >Dear Person, > I think you owe Mr. Shein a sincere, net-wide apology. His >article was closely reasoned and suggestive; your comment on a >very minor part of it was far more than it merited. Thank You. > gregory rawlins. I'm sorry that I let my anger overcome my reason and I should have been less abusive. BUT... The most closely reasoned argument can be destroyed by a single flaw. (See under Perpetual Motion). Mr Shein casually dismissed privacy as something that's only for those who can afford to pay for it. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO Privacy is a basic human RIGHT. Too many of our rights have been appropriated by authority with the excuse that the greater public good is served thereby. My mentioning of Soviet Russia was quite intentional - there is a country whose citizens EXPECT to have their daily actions and thoughts monitored by the State. Every time someone suggests that another right is 'optional' or 'available at extra cost' or 'in the way of progress' the quality of our lives diminishes and we slide another few feet down the slope that leads to the totalitarian society. To sell your birthright for convenience's sake is foolish short-term thinking of the sort that leads to badly-built, dangerous nuclear power stations (I'm for nuclear power) and inefficient totalitarian regimes. Many people that I know who live alone choose to have ex-directory numbers to protect themselves from obscene phone calls, or burglars 'casing the joint'. To suggest that such people should have to publicise their 'phone numbers or get another line is to put a price on their fear. No one should have to pay that price.