Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!lll-winken!uunet!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: munnari!ucsvc.unimelb.edu.au!U5434122@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Networks Considered Harmful - For Electronic Mail Message-ID: Date: 30 Aug 89 05:12:00 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: The University of Melbourne Lines: 64 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 334, message 3 of 4 In article , JMC@sail.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes: > Electronic mail (email), using ARPANET and other networks has > been in use for almost 20 years. The widespread use of telefax is more > recent. > However, unless email is freed from dependence on the networks, I predict it > will be supplanted by telefax for most uses in spite of its many advantages > over telefax. These advantages include the fact that information is > transmitted more cheaply as character streams than as images. Multiple > addressees are readily accommodated. Moreover, messages transmitted as > character streams can be readily filed, searched, edited and used by computer > programs. > The solution is to go to a system that resembles fax in that the ``net > addresses'' are just telephone numbers. The simple form of the command is > just > MAIL @$, > after which the user engages in the usual dialog with the mail system. > The sending machine dials the receiving machine just as is done with > fax. When the receiving machine answers, the sender announces that it has a > message for . Implementing this can involve either implementation of > protocols in a user machine or a special machine that pretends to be a user > of the receiving machine or local area network. The former involves less As you are probably aware, the amateur Bulletin Board networks already have a protocol developed which allows the transmission of mail, compressed files and message bases using the PSTN. Simple routing is handled in a "send all mail for A to system B for forwarding" fashion. Presently the address of a system has four fields, each with possible range 0-32766 which would allow many many systems. It would be fairly easy to adapt this to a telephone-area type situation. If the system were adopted by telcos or private enterprise, anyone with a PC and modem could register and receive e-mail suppose I, 61-3-899-6263 wanted to send mail to someone. I type the message, then my computer dials the email exchange in Melbourne, which forwards it to the international gateway if necessary; the message is then sent to the appropriate city and to the destination system if it is marked 'Continuous Mail', or held for pickup. Usually only mail messages are routed, but files can be routed too. Users could, at present, share their direct contact telephone numbers and avoid routing, but the companies offering this VAS might want to prevent this. Also, it would be better to integrate data compression and password protection to reduce transmission time and ensure privacy. All that is necessary is for a company to realise the potential of this system. The technology is already with us. Who needs a dedicated phone line? It could be done by users polling the e-mail exchange in the small hours, and checking for mail; it only takes 30 seconds. Businesses, wanting to be in constant touch could have dedicated lines, or use the same line as a fax machine. But it is ridiculous that at present a letter is typed on a WP, printed and then faxed, instead of the file being transmitted. How did they convince the first business to buy a fax machine, anyway??? Daniel