Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY
From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Networks considered harmful
Message-ID: <12551921541.35.PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU>
Date: 21 Dec 89 18:44:19 GMT
References: <8912210003.AA02652@bel.isi.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 16

Hmmm, indeed.

It must be that "FAX" is so much better than "e-mail" that they don't need
to discuss its superiority.

Actually, when it comes to Content, instead of Form (on which I think the
commercial success of FAX is largely based), there does seem to be _one_
advantage to the inherently limited, point-to-point medium: at least you have
to write things down before Faxification, and when you do a first draft you
sometimes notice that a second draft is called for.  Netmail, as I've
been saying for years and years (see RFCs with even lower numbers than
Jack Haverty's), does tend to make shooting from the metaphorical hip
rather too easy, on the other metaphorical hand.

    cheers, map
-------