Re: U.S. Postal Service proposal: restricting domain names to street addresses

[peterd@Bunyip.Com (Peter Deutsch)]

errr....

[ You wrote: ]

> At 11:24 AM 8/14/98 -0400, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >I fail to see the logic behind your arguments. If e-mail can go to a
> >street address, it is no more than a telegram. Why, then, has all the
> >trouble to set up networked digital communications be taken? 

This was probably a rhetorical question, but the answer of
course was not "to deliver bi-directional email", but "to
speed and ease communications". Sometimes that's going to
be bi-directional communications, sometimes that's going to
be uni-directional and in both cases that will be useful.
It's always a big mistake to assume you know everything
everyone will want to do with the tools you build...


> Actually, the idea, around our boardroom, was to install an envelope
> stuffer, which would convert an email to a letter, in order to send e-mail
> to folks (friends/relatives/family) who did not have e-mail at all. We
> figured it to be a logistical nightmare, for us. Someone else may actually
> get it to work. It should be reasonably profitable. Cheaper than a telegram
> but more expensive than a letter, even if more convenient. Also, it's
> really out of MHSC business scope and mission. There are other problems
> wrt, file-attachments.<grin> MHSC wants 1% if you can make it work<grin>.

Actually, this sounds similar to the "network fax" project
organized by Carl Malamud (among others) a few years ago.
Instead of email as telegrams, it was fax transmissions
which were despatched as email so they could be rendered
and then delivered as a local phone call (eliminating the
long distance cost). They'd cobbled together a collection
of rendering code, modem drivers, etc and you basically
sent your fax to an email address with the phone number as
part of the domain name.  The mail system took care of
routing it to the right mailhost and you then had your
local call delivery.

FYI, they even figured out how to pay for it all, in that
they wanted to sell banner ads on the fax cover page. I
thought the idea had potential, but would clearly need
better software and real marketing. Haven't heard anything
on this for a while so assume htey never went ahead with it
as a real business.


> >Surely the
> >whole point to the Internet is that it serves two-way communication that
> >is not restricted by geography: you can get your e-mail anywhere, change
> >your e-mail address or your domain name from one ISP or server to
> >another, alias mail, bounce it, forward it at will.
.  .  .
> Where in here is there a requirement for a physically located e-mail
> address? The answer is that you don't need it. The whole idea has the
> merits of a fart in a hurricane.

Before becoming too rude or aggressive, consider what this
idea might do to the economies of scale for distributing
third class (ie. "junk") mail. Your nationwide advertising
agency could email the PDF file to the appropriate server,
which would print and bundle the mail for delivery. Such
people *do* want the physical location, and would be happy
to save a few micro-pennies per copy delivered.

Would it really affect an economy of scale? Maybe, maybe
not but you seem to be a little too scornful of the
usefulness of geographic-based services. Some people *do*
care....

				- peterd

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Peter Deutsch,                                   (514) 875-8611  (phone)
  Bunyip Information Systems Inc.                     (514) 875-8134  (fax)
    <peterd@bunyip.com>                               http://www.bunyip.com

"How come there's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------