Human-Nets-Request@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles McGrew, The Moderator) (11/08/85)
HUMAN-NETS Digest Thursday, 7 Nov 1985 Volume 8 : Issue 36
Today's Topics:
Queries - Red Checks? &
Banking Privacy of Paper,
Computers and People - Mice vs. trackball vs light pens vs...,
Computer Networks - Email Addressing (2 msgs),
Computers and the Law - Libel and Slander
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: <ECON35%vax1.oxford.ac.uk@ucl-cs.ARPA>
Date: 2-NOV-1985 15:22:02
From: ECON35%vax1.oxford.ac.uk@ucl-cs.arpa
Do you know anything about sending electronic mail containing
mathematical and other symbols? I know of several methods, but
is there a standard, if only a de facto one? Thanks.... Hunter Monroe
ECON35@UK.AC.OX.VAX1
------------------------------
Return-path: <@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,@ucf.CSNET:tanner@ki4pv.uucp>
From: tanner <@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA,@ucf.CSNET:tanner@ki4pv.uucp>
Subject: Banking Privacy of Paper
Date: Tue Nov 5 15:50:12 1985
I remember some years ago some discussion of the matter of having
cheques printed on red paper, as this was supposed to cause the bank's
copies of them to turn out all black and thus unreadable when the feds
come in to see who writes cheques to what. This was offered as the
reason that cheques are not available on red paper from the banks.
Do the banks still use this sort of film? If so, is there an outfit
somewhere that will print cheques on red paper? What is the best
shade of red for this purpose?
tanner andrews
<std disclm> <empl disclm>
note: the return address generated for this message is almost
assuredlyincorrect. try one of the following; it will probably work:
(uucp) {decvax | akgua}!ucf-cs!ki4pv!tanner
(csnet) ki4pv!tanner@ucf-cs
(arpanet) ki4pv!tanner%ucf-cs@csnet-relay
------------------------------
Return-path: <CZAJKOWSKI@TL-20B.ARPA>
Date: Wed 30 Oct 85 16:52:19-EST
From: CZAJKOWSKI@TL-20B.ARPA
Subject: pointers to/copies of mice vs. trackball vs light pens vs.
Subject: ....
Many months ago the hardware user-interface dilemmas of mice versus
trackballs versus light pens versus touch screens versus some other
things raged mightily on human-nets. Has anyone archived a) any
pointers to relevant published materials on the subject, b) any
relevant messages from the human-nets monologues and dialogues or c)
the particular digests that the debates ran in? I would greatly
appreciate pointers to and/or copies of such things.
Please mail to me directly; I don't always make it through all of the
digests all of the time.
Thanks muchly,
Czajkowski@Tartan.arpa
------------------------------
Return-path: <mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 85 10:25:35 pdt
From: mikes@AMES-NAS.ARPA (Peter Mikes)
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V8 #35
Re: email addresses - phone-numbers and collective idiocy
The phone numbers are unsuitable for e-mail adresses becouse they
are area dependent. Addresses should have one to one correspodence
with people, they should not change when I move, go to vacation or
start working on a different computer, for a different company or in
different domain ( GOV, EDU..)
So - most of the addressing schemes used are manifestation of the
EDSEL spirit which is pervading the computer and telecommunication
industry today. Perhaps closest to a reasonable scheme are MCI email
addresses and before we proceed, explain what is wrong with those.
Any practical system will collect the adresses of people who ever
wrote to me in my personal directory - perhaps with dates/ Re,.. etc
so that I can mail to any of them with a click of a mouse. It will
allow me to to add to that directory from special purpose
subdirectories -- There is some 10 to power of ten people around and
so it would have little sense to have a comprehensive directories.
Email must allow one to see the listof "people within 25 mikes
radius, who currently selling a used chevy vagen' as a part of the
adressing scheme and allow me to add them /temporarily/ to my
mailing list /possibly as group alias/ as long as such request is
compatible with the privacy constrain which THEY place on their own
profile....
It is really fairly simple problem - too bad that nobody is thinking
about it.:
------------------------------
Return-path: <RMXJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu>
Date: 25 October 85 11:25 EDT
From: RMXJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu
Subject: (copy) Phone Numbers for Email Addressing
Originally sent from: RMXJ@CORNELLA
Originally sent to: WYLAND@SRI-KL.ARPA
Another problem with this idea is that there are very few people who
do not share a phone (at either home or work with either secretaries
or family) with others. So, granted, the network could get it to that
number, but how about the issue of privacy and/or security.
Presumably, there would just be one account per phone number, right?
-- Gligor Tashkovich
RMXJ @ CORNELLA.BITNET
RMXJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU (or BERKELEY.EDU)
------------------------------
Return-path: <decvax!sunybcs!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 85 11:13:13 EST
From: decvax!sunybcs!colonel@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Col. G. L.
From: Sicherman)
Subject: Re: libel and slander (V8, #3)
The difficulty of extending the libel/slander distinction has been
treated at length in a series of case reports by A. P. Herbert in the
British law journal _Punch._ Herbert's reports have been published in
book form as _Modern Misleading Cases in the Common Law,_ etc. I
recommend them to anybody who believes in trying to extend outmoded
distinctions to modern communications media.
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************