Xref: utzoo news.groups:22666 alt.fax:790 comp.misc:9642 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.fax,comp.misc Subject: Re: why is fax alt? Keywords: FAX server, Netware 2.15 Message-ID: <1990Jul24.221621.2509@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 24 Jul 90 22:16:21 GMT References: <17120@haddock.ima.isc.com> <1990Jul20.051009.24759@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <3423@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 22 In article <3423@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> eli@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Elias) writes: > > xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>>> >>>>isn't computerfax a real enough technology to warrant a comp.fax newsgroup? >> >>Actually, it should probably be ignored as yet another environmentally >>destructive fad yuppie nuisance toy in hopes it will go away soon. > >hey now! computerfax ain't environmentally destructive, unless you >think phone calls destroy the environment. with computerfax, nothing has >to be printed unless you like the way it previews on your workstation. >and voila -- a thermal-paper tree is saved. Sure, but why go to all that trouble to raise the cost of email from $0.0025 (batched transmission) to $2.50 (long distance call)? Fax is what you do when you're too lazy to hack the politics of making email work right. Kent, the man from xanth.