Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!uc!shamash!timbuk!willow23!rice
From: rice@willow23.cray.com (Jonathan Rice)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Computer Readable Font (for acct numbers on Bank Checks) wanted
Message-ID: <101907.16373@timbuk.cray.com>
Date: 10 May 91 19:37:30 GMT
References: <1991May2.191802.2778@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <12979@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1991May9.183550.13233@millipore.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Research, Inc., Eagan, MN
Lines: 27


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