dylan@june.cs.washington.edu (Dylan McNamee) (05/03/91)
I am just now getting ready to order my next batch of checks for some
silly amount of money, and realized that I can make them myself in
PostScript! All I need is to get the account/check number in that
goofy computer readable font they use at the bottom of checks. Is
this, or something like it around? Anyone see any caveats?
(Of course I will keep the PS file that generates my checks under
tight wraps...)
dylan
--
dylan mcnamee / "I stood there on the sidewalk, Roy Rogers
dylan@cs.washington.edu \/lunchpail in my hand. Then I heard sweet children's
Qua! voices...and I began to understand." Randy Newmanseeba@nas.nasa.gov (Thomas D. Seeba) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.191802.2778@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, dylan@june.cs.washington.edu (Dylan McNamee) writes: |> |> I am just now getting ready to order my next batch of checks for some |> silly amount of money, and realized that I can make them myself in |> PostScript! All I need is to get the account/check number in that |> goofy computer readable font they use at the bottom of checks. Is |> this, or something like it around? Anyone see any caveats? When that "goofy computer readable font" was first put on checks back in the 1960's (?), it was also printed with a special magnetic ink. This may not be true anymore, but if it is, that would be a show stopper. Also, your bank and/or the NBA (National Banker's Association) may decide to object. Tom Seeba NAS Systems Division M/S 258-6 HSP Support Moffett Field, CA 94035 seeba@nas.nasa.gov 415-604-4528
jj1h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joseph Jackson) (05/08/91)
Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.postscript: 2-May-91 Re: Computer Readable Font .. Thomas D. Seeba@nas.nasa (989) > |> I am just now getting ready to order my next batch of checks for some > |> silly amount of money, and realized that I can make them myself in > |> PostScript! All I need is to get the account/check number in that > |> goofy computer readable font they use at the bottom of checks. Is > |> this, or something like it around? Anyone see any caveats? > When that "goofy computer readable font" was first put on checks back in > the 1960's (?), it was also printed with a special magnetic ink. This > may not be true anymore, but if it is, that would be a show stopper. They still use magnetic ink. My mother once used one of the deposit slips that came with her checks to make a deposit into my account. Of course, the number at the bottom was wrong, so she just crossed out a few digits and wrote in the correction. The magnetic ink scanner "saw" right through her marks and my deposit went into her account. I'd say don't try it. Joe Jackson Distributed Workstation Services Carnegie Mellon University Internet: jj1h+@andrew.cmu.edu Bitnet: jj1h+@ANDREW AT&Tnet: (412) 268-8799
eager@ringworld.Eng.Sun.COM (Michael J. Eager) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May2.191802.2778@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dylan@june.cs.washington.edu (Dylan McNamee) writes: > >I am just now getting ready to order my next batch of checks for some >silly amount of money, and realized that I can make them myself in >PostScript! All I need is to get the account/check number in that >goofy computer readable font they use at the bottom of checks. Is >this, or something like it around? Anyone see any caveats? The characters are MICR -- Magnetic Ink Character Recognition. Laser printer ink will look the same, but won't run through the check sorters. Your checks will always be in the reject basket. I believe that there is a Federal Reserve Bank requirement that all checks which are processed through the FRB have MICR encoding. This doesn't mean that your checks won't be valid, it only means that they will have take a long time to get to your bank. If you are collecting interest, maybe this isn't a bad idea :-). At least until your bank starts to complain. -- Mike Eager
blu@millipore.com (Brian Utterback) (05/10/91)
In <12979@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> eager@ringworld.Eng.Sun.COM writes: > >I believe that there is a Federal Reserve Bank requirement that all checks >which are processed through the FRB >have MICR encoding. This doesn't mean that your checks won't be valid, it >only means that they will have take a long time to get to your bank. If you >are collecting interest, maybe this isn't a bad idea :-). At least until >your bank starts to complain. >-- Mike Eager I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV, but my understanding is that they really can't complain. Or rather they can't make you stop. Your bank is required by law to surrender your money to whomever you designate when so ordered by you in writing (i.e. a check.) The form of the check is irrelevent. I remember a case where someone wrote the check on the side of a cow and the bank had to honor it. Of course it might take a bit longer to process your checks (as noted above, this might not be bad.) With this in mind, doesn't the banking requirement that the back of the check be written in only a box smaller than the average person's writing seem pretty ludicrous? -- Brian Utterback, Millipore Corporation, 75G Wiggins Ave., Bedford Ma. 01730 Work:617-275-9200x8245, Home:603-891-2536 INTERNET:: blu@millipore.millipore.com UUCP:: {samsung,cg-atla,merk,wang,bu-tyng}!millipore!blu
woody@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Woody Baker @ Eagle Signal) (05/10/91)
In article <gc9rnbG00VQsAKMlxc@andrew.cmu.edu>, jj1h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joseph Jackson) writes: > Excerpts from netnews.comp.lang.postscript: 2-May-91 Re: Computer > Readable Font .. Thomas D. Seeba@nas.nasa (989) > > > |> I am just now getting ready to order my next batch of checks for some > > |> silly amount of money, and realized that I can make them myself in > > They still use magnetic ink. My mother once used one of the deposit There are several firms that sell special toners for the SX and CX engines that are MICR (the funny characters) magnetic. You can use these to create checks that will work legitamately. A deeper problem, is the special paper. Most checks have a non-copy background or other decoration. Banks get used to seeing these checks. They might not honor one that is on plain paper. Now, true, you can technicaly write a check on anthing. Toilet paper, paper sacks etc, and it is a legal check. This whole subject sort of bothers me, because there are lots of places now printing payroll checks complete with the signatures with a laser printer. It seems easy to get one, scan it in, clean the scan up, and print out any number of legal looking checks. There have been several cases of this, and there basicaly is no defense against it, other than special papers. One could concieve of someone taking one of the generic deposit slips from the bank (the ones with the account number that causes an exception, and requires a clerk to key the information in manually, supplied for those who have forgotten theirs) copying it, and printing thier own account number on the bottom. The placing a batch back in the bin. Anyone making a deposit will be depositing to the criminals' account. Makes you really nervous. I won't use one of the banks generic deposit slips for that reason. Cheers Woody
hal@world.std.com (Harry A Levinson) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May2.191802.2778@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dylan@june.cs.washington.edu (Dylan McNamee) writes: > >I am just now getting ready to order my next batch of checks for some >silly amount of money, and realized that I can make them myself in >PostScript! All I need is to get the account/check number in that >goofy computer readable font they use at the bottom of checks. Is >this, or something like it around? Anyone see any caveats? > >(Of course I will keep the PS file that generates my checks under >tight wraps...) > I am suprised that banks still use the magnetic ink. Our payroll service seems to print our checks with a laser printer. You might call a payroll service and find out how they do it. Unfortunately your original question about a source for the font remains unanswered. If you are able to do this you could take one more step and scan your signature. harry levinson hal@world.std.com Quickware Engineering & Design, Inc.
syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) (05/10/91)
hal@world.std.com (Harry A Levinson) writes: >In article <1991May2.191802.2778@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dylan@june.cs.washington.edu (Dylan McNamee) writes: >> >>I am just now getting ready to order my next batch of checks for some >>silly amount of money, and realized that I can make them myself in >>PostScript! All I need is to get the account/check number in that >>goofy computer readable font they use at the bottom of checks. Is >>this, or something like it around? Anyone see any caveats? >Unfortunately your >original question about a source for the font remains unanswered. The font in question is a stock Adobe Type 1 font, and include MICR and OCR characters in the package. -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235
wieland@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Jeffrey J Wieland) (05/10/91)
There is a Ricoh-engine based laser printer that is sold specifically for printing checks etc. It uses a special toner that contains the magnetic particles. Our credit union here has one. Unfortunately, it isn't a PostScript printer. Perhaps the toner would work in other Ricoh-based laser printers, like the DEC LN03-R. -- Jeff Wieland wieland@ecn.purdue.edu
rice@willow23.cray.com (Jonathan Rice) (05/11/91)
For a very thorough discussion of this whole subject, look up Forbes magazine in the neighborhood of March (???) 1990 (plus or minus a couple of months). It's the issue with the forged check on the cover. The article's author forged a check on the magazine's account, and it cleared with no trouble. Although the many posters who pointed out the requirement for magnetic ink are correct, there are apparently hundreds of checks a day that get rejected by check readers; these have their interbank number and account number keyed in by operators. An operator has no way to distinguish between a legitimate check that merely misregistered from one with non-magnetic ink in an authentic looking font. I imagine that your bank would not like you to make a habit of this. The bottom line, as I recall, was that your best protection against forgery was to have safety paper custom printed for your business, and to use good old physical security measures for the paper. [BTW, there was a question in this group a while back about the legality of postscript signatures. In Minnesota, postscript is as good as a fountain pen for "business" signatures (e.g. an officer of a corporation signing for that corporation). Citation on request. I haven't discovered the statute, if any, covering J. Random Citizen's signature.] -- Jonathan C. Rice | Internet: rice@cray.com | UUCP: uunet!cray!rice
jlister@slhisc.uucp (John Lister) (05/13/91)
In article <12979@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> eager@ringworld.Eng.Sun.COM (Michael J. Eager) writes: >In article <1991May2.191802.2778@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dylan@june.cs.washington.edu (Dylan McNamee) writes: >> [...questions about printing checks on regular printers and comment that the technology used is Magnetic Ink Character Recognition deleted...] However, if you *really* want to do this, you can buy laser printers that use magnetic toner from Xerox, NCR and others which you can use to print checks. I don't know whether they support PostScript though. The last time I looked at this (several years ago, when I worked for a bank), the base cost was about $10,000, which probably makes it not worthwhile for the average user :-). By the way, there are various ABA regulations on the printing quality and the paper that the check is printed on (ordinary 20lb bond WON'T do). John Lister.
jlister@slhisc.uucp (John Lister) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May9.183550.13233@millipore.com> blu@millipore.com (Brian Utterback) writes: >In <12979@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> eager@ringworld.Eng.Sun.COM writes: >> >>I believe that there is a Federal Reserve Bank requirement that all checks >>which are processed through the FRB >>have MICR encoding. This doesn't mean that your checks won't be valid, it >>only means that they will have take a long time to get to your bank. If you >>are collecting interest, maybe this isn't a bad idea :-). At least until >>your bank starts to complain. >>-- Mike Eager > >I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV, but my understanding is that >they really can't complain. Or rather they can't make you stop. Your bank is >required by law to surrender your money to whomever you designate when so >ordered by you in writing (i.e. a check.) The form of the check is irrelevent. [...remainder deleted...] There have been many celebrated cases when checks have been written on cows, eggs, concrete paving slabs...usually as protests. While the bank is, in theory, obliged to accept the "check", it charges for the special handling that it takes to clear. If you look carefully at the agreement you signed when you opened your checking account (and you DID read it, didn't you? :-) you will probably find that this is a *special* service for which fees can be negotiated. For ordinary checks to be processed through the various clearing houses, they need the MICR with the bank, account and amount encoded, on a piece of paper that will go through the sorting machines several times without tearing and with the machine being able to read the electronic information each time. Other checks are posted (or in the case of cows, I guess, taken) to the destination bank directly for clearing and this takes longer. There was a comment about why do you have to endorse the back of the check in such a small place. The answer is that the FRB, as part of the attempt to speed up clearing (which means you get your money *sooner*) made some changes to the system which mean that the banks need more of the check for the various stamps they use to track its progress. John Lister.
dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May9.183550.13233@millipore.com> blu@millipore.com (Brian Utterback) writes: >In <12979@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> eager@ringworld.Eng.Sun.COM writes: >> >>I believe that there is a Federal Reserve Bank requirement that all checks >>which are processed through the FRB >>have MICR encoding. This doesn't mean that your checks won't be valid, it >>only means that they will have take a long time to get to your bank. > > I am not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV, but my understanding > is that they really can't complain. Or rather they can't make you stop. > Your bank is required by law to surrender your money to whomever you > designate when so ordered by you in writing (i.e. a check.) The form of > the check is irrelevent. Well... yes and no (in a practical sense). As I understand it, the standard definition of a negotiable instrument (i.e. a check) has not been changed. You can draft a check on your account on the back of a napkin, or on the side of a cow, and it's quite legal. The recipient can take it to your bank, and your bank is required to cash it. Note the phrase "your bank"! The rules are a bit different if your recipient wishes to cash or deposit the check at his/her bank (assuming that the two banks are not one and the same). As I understand it, no bank other than the one on which a check is drawn is _required_ to honor a check. Most will do so... for their customers... "subject to collection." That is, they'll provisionally accept the check, send it to the issuing bank (usually via the FRB clearing system), accept the money in return, and credit it to the payee. This is a courtesy, not a legal requirement, and the payee's bank is free to put conditions on the provisional acceptance. Up until a year or so ago, most banks would put a long "hold" on such funds... they'd tie up the funds for up to 2-3 weeks (for out-of-state checks) to see if the check were "bounced" by the issuing bank. This was stated as a defense against "check kiting"... but a lot of people felt that banks were simply holding onto funds (and thus gaining the use of them) well in excess of the actual amount of time needed to clear the checks. So... the rules were changed. New policies were put into place, which limited the permissible fund-holding time to a small number of days. In order to ensure that checks _could_ be cleared through the system within the time limits, the Federal Reserve Bank tightened up on the rules for check formats (requiring MICR coding, limiting the space for endorsements and routing-bank stamps, etc.) so that almost all checks could be processed through the high-speed check-routing equipment, with only minimal human intervention. Now... if you start printing up your own checks, using non-MICR- compatible fonts or toner, your checks will be kicked out by the FRB routing machinery. They'll probably end up being hand-routed to your bank in an "exceptions" bundle. Your bank will have to hand-sort them when returning them to you at the end of the month. Your bank will probably become quite upset with you due to the additional hand labor required. Your bank will probably contact you and say "We think you have a batch of nonstandard checks. Please stop using them, or we will start charging you a nonstandard-check fee for each check which we must process manually." Your bank may well be within its rights to hit you with such a charge... some banks now have clauses in their customer agreements in which you, the account holder, agree to use only checks issued by or approved by the bank. If you violate this clause, they may charge you extra, or close your account for having violated your agreement. How do businesses get away with using "laser-printed" checks? Simple... the checks are pre-printed, using MICR-compliant fonts and toner, with all of the necessary routing codes (and, usually, sequential check numbers as well). The "blanks" are then laser-printed on demand with the payee name, amount, and frequently a digitized signature. Except in unusual cases (very-high-volume check production using special MICR- compatible toner), the MICR characters are _not_ added during the laser-printing stage. Disclaimer: all of the above is based on my reading of various bits of information; it may be incorrect in places. -- Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 813-8917 Domain: dplatt@ntg.com UUCP: ...apple!ntg!dplatt USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303
herman@corpane.uucp (Harry Herman) (05/14/91)
In <12979@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> eager@ringworld.Eng.Sun.COM (Michael J. Eager) writes: >In article <1991May2.191802.2778@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dylan@june.cs.washington.edu (Dylan McNamee) writes: >> >>I am just now getting ready to order my next batch of checks for some >>silly amount of money, and realized that I can make them myself in >>PostScript! All I need is to get the account/check number in that >>goofy computer readable font they use at the bottom of checks. Is >>this, or something like it around? Anyone see any caveats? >The characters are MICR -- Magnetic Ink Character Recognition. Laser printer >ink will look the same, but won't run through the check sorters. Your checks >will always be in the reject basket. >I believe that there is a Federal Reserve Bank requirement that all checks >which are processed through the FRB >have MICR encoding. This doesn't mean that your checks won't be valid, it >only means that they will have take a long time to get to your bank. If you >are collecting interest, maybe this isn't a bad idea :-). At least until >your bank starts to complain. >-- Mike Eager What we did was to order "blank" forms that just had the MICR encodings on them and nothing else. We then designed our own check forms using Postscript. When a check run is started, the user is asked what the first check number is, so that the computer printed part matches the MICR encodings, and the computer records for accounts payable also have the correct check number. Harry Herman herman@corpane
tim@int13.hf.intel.com (Timothy E. Forsyth) (05/15/91)
hal@world.std.com (Harry A Levinson) writes: >In article <1991May2.191802.2778@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dylan@june.cs.washington.edu (Dylan McNamee) writes: >> >>I am just now getting ready to order my next batch of checks for some >>silly amount of money, and realized that I can make them myself in >>PostScript! All I need is to get the account/check number in that >>goofy computer readable font they use at the bottom of checks. Is >>this, or something like it around? Anyone see any caveats? >I am suprised that banks still use the magnetic ink. Our payroll service >seems to print our checks with a laser printer. You might call a If I remember the presentation I saw a year or so ago by Unisys, their new check processing system does read the magnetic characters. What they were talking about was a new optical system that is put inline of the rest of the check scaning and processing system. The system would take a stack of checks (constantly being filled by humans) and to a magnetic scan of the MICR strip, then do a optical scan of both the front and back of the check. The info from the magnetic scan would go to a mainframe, the image data was processed and queued onto servers. The checks then went back into stacks. The images were sent to workstations via Ethernet and the magnetic data was also sent to the workstation from the Mainframe, where an operator would key in the data. (The workstations 386 systems running OS/2 and PM with custom graphics boards [for highspeed graphics data I/O].) The check stacks were then run thru another machine and the final MICR data was printed on them. This increased the thruput of a check and reduced the handling of the checks. Anyone from Unisys know any more on how the systems are doing? I know there is a lot of Intel hardware and software in that system (Multibus I & II processor cards and network cards, ISA bus systems and network cards, RMX II real time OS, etc.... Sorry for the deviation from the subject, but yes the magnetic ink is still used and needed (lots of small banks who can't afford to by the wiz-bang-neato optical only systems. Can you say Mega $$$ ?) Tim Forsyth -- Tim Forsyth, Intel Corp., Desktop Computer Division, Hillsboro, Oregon, USA Internet: tim@int13.intel.com or Tim_Forsyth@ccm.hf.intel.com CompuServe: 74040,2712 (checked once a week)
bame@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM (Paul Bame) (05/21/91)
> There are several firms that sell special toners for the SX and CX engines > that are MICR (the funny characters) magnetic. You can use these to > create checks that will work legitamately. Lots of toner is magnetic - LJ+ stock toner for example. It's probably not magnetic *enough* - or maybe these special toner cartridges aren't special and people are paying too much. > One could concieve of someone taking one of the generic deposit slips > from the bank (the ones with the account number that causes an > exception, and requires a clerk to key the information in manually, > supplied for those who have forgotten theirs) copying it, and > printing thier own account number on the bottom. The placing a > batch back in the bin. Anyone making a deposit will be depositing to > the criminals' account. 'tis been done - long ago - even before laser printers. I did a report on computer crime in 1976 and mentioned it - forget the reference but it's a book by somebody maybe with initials D. P. who worked at, I think, SRI. -Paul Bame bame@hubble.sde.hp.com N0KCL
maceache@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Tim Maceachern) (05/23/91)
Re: printing deposit slips with an impostors MICR id on them. I remember reading of someone who was tried for that offense back in the seventies. I also remember that, at the time, I found it strange because the method of the fraud had been published in the Alfred Hitchcock Mystery Magazine several months or a year previous. I wonder whether the article was written based on one of those cases? Tim MacEachern