29-Apr-79 21:50:56-PDT,6126;000000000001 Date: 20 Apr 1979 1859-PST Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1101 Survey [ISIA]PROCEEDINGS.MSG#1051-#1100 From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: [ISI]Mailing.List;193: Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]20-Apr-79 18:59:54.STEFFERUD> Redistributed-To: vonGehren at BBN Redistributed-By: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI (connected to MSGGROUP) Redistributed-Date: 21 Apr 1979 MSGGROUP#1100 Other headers are strange too 426 chars 20 April 1979 20:50-EST From: Richard M. Stallman PROCEEDINGS.MSG#1001-#1050 6930 chars 15 Apr 1979 1216-PST From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI 29-Apr-79 21:50:56-PDT,343;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 20-Apr-79 2245-PST Date: 21 April 1979 01:38 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics (Bob Frankston) Subject: MSGGROUP#1102 Computer Networks Publication To: msggroup at MIT-MC Message-ID: <790421063845.703971 at MIT-Multics> Can someone send me pric and ordering information for the periodical? 229-Apr-79 21:50:56-PDT,849;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 21-Apr-79 0015-PST Date: 21 Apr 1979 0003-PST Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1103 Re: Computer Networks Publication From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-MULTICS Cc: MSGGROUP at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]21-Apr-79 00:03:24.STEFFERUD> In-Reply-To: <790421063845.703971 at MIT-Multics> Do you mean "COMPUTER NETWORKS: The International Journal of Distributed Informatique" published by North Holland and Edited by Phil Enslow of Ga Tech? COMPUTER NETWORKS costs US$56.00/year normally, or A special "personal" subscription is available for 1979 at US$29.00 To order it you should use the publisher's order form, which I can copy and send to you if you will send me a cut & paste mailing label in a message. Hope this is what you are looking for - Stef 29-Apr-79 21:50:56-PDT,1582;000000000000 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 21-Apr-79 1025-PST Date: 21 Apr 1979 1014-PST Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: MSGGROUP#1104 More to Follow From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]Mailing.List;193: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]21-Apr-79 10:14:05.PANKO> For those of you who don't know me, I'm Raymond R. Panko. My friends call me "Ra3Y," for reasons that are better left unexplained. I teach marketing research and marketing strategy at the University of Hawaii and in the Office of Management Programs (an executive training program). Much of the recent MSGGROUP discussion has focused on "user needs." I feel that I have something to say on this topic, and I plan to send sa series of messages to the group. Contemporary marketing thought rests on the so-called "Marketing Principle:" know the customer's needs and wants and design a coherent package (product, service, price, promotion, and distribution) to fit these needs and wants." Marketing, in its user orientation, has been struggling with the question of needs and wants for some time, and I think that several general principles in the marketing literature could be useful to MSSGROUP. I will pass these along, hopefully in a coherent fashion. Last year, I personally conducted a questionnaire survey of all known computer mail users at DARCOM. This work was done through SRI, under contract to the Command. Although not a marketing research study, some of its results seem to be useful in assessing user needs. Again, I will try to pass on key points to the MSGGROUP. Aloha, Ra3y 29-Apr-79 21:50:56-PDT,1083;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 21-Apr-79 1248-PST Date: 21 Apr 1979 1233-PST Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1105 One Marketing Function Definition Subject: Re: More to Follow From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: PANKO at SRI-KL Cc: msggroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]21-Apr-79 12:33:00.STEFFERUD> In-Reply-To: <[SRI-KL]21-Apr-79 10:14:05.PANKO> At this point I wish to contribute my favorite Marketing Definition Slide: M A R K E T I N G F U N C T I O N TO MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF PRODUCTION: Learn What Customers Value Most so that High Valued Products and Servcies Can Be Identified and Produced Work With the Customers to Help Them Exploit the Products and Services Offered and Thus Learn to Appreciate Their Values Originally created in 1972 by Network Management Associates for the US Army Material Command, now known as DARCOM. 29-Apr-79 21:50:56-PDT,557;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 21-Apr-79 2155-PST From: Gaines at Rand-Unix Date: 21 Apr 1979 at 2144-PST To: PANKO at Sri-Kl cc: msggroup at Mit-Ml Subject: MSGGROUP#1106 Ra3y In-reply-to: Your message of 21 Apr 1979 1014-PST. <[SRI-KL]21-Apr-79 10:14:05.PANKO> Since you brought up the subject, I can't resist asking.. How do you pronounce "Ra3y"? P.S. For those concerned: the message system I am using generated the following line in attempting to help me reply to Ra3y's message: cc: [ISI]Mailing.List;193: 29-Apr-79 21:50:56-PDT,1750;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1319-PST Date: 22 Apr 1979 1254-PST Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1107 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: Gaines at RAND-UNIX Cc: PANKO at SRI-KL, msggroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]22-Apr-79 12:54:15.STEFFERUD> In-Reply-To: Your message of 21 Apr 1979 at 2144-PST RE: [isi]mailing.list;193: Ra3y used the master mailing list that is stored in the file specified by the path-name that your message system gave you when it set up the reply addresses. You could have used FTP with that path-name to get the actual file of TENEX formatted netmail addresses of MSGGROUP members. Of course, your message reply facility could only come up with the path-name because the rest of it was not transmitted with the message. The MSGGROUP@MIT-ML distribution mailbox we have been using recently contains a current copy of [isi]mailing.list;nnn that has been translated into ITS format netmail addresses. MSGGROUP@MIT-ML is not included in any of the lists for obvious reasons. MSGGROUP mailing lists use the path-name as the list name to provide unambiguous information regarding recipient lists. All updates of the mailing list result in version number increments, and all old lists are archived so we can go back into the archives and see who was on which lists when. No one to my knowledge has ever dug back past current on-line files, but they are easy to archive so .... As for nicknumeral pronunciation, I believe the rule is that the numbers are silent. Ra3y can no doubt regale us with endless anecdotes, being the first of the distinguished breed of nicknumeral owners. Stef 29-Apr-79 21:50:57-PDT,451;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1339-PST Date: 22 APR 1979 1619-EST From: JZS at CCA (Joanne Sattley) Subject: MSGGROUP#1108 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) To: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI cc: MsgGroup at MIT-ML In response to your message sent 22 Apr 1979 1254-PST If viewed as being written in the Cyrillic alphabet, Ra3y would be pronounced rah-zoo. But I haven't come up with a good translation for it! ------- 29-Apr-79 21:50:57-PDT,538;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1403-PST Date: 22 Apr 1979 1345-PST Sender: GEOFF at SRI-KA Subject: MSGGROUP#1109 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow To: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Cc: Gaines at RAND-UNIX, PANKO at SRI-KL, msggroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[SRI-KA]22-Apr-79 13:45:01.GEOFF> In-Reply-To: <[USC-ISI]22-Apr-79 12:54:15.STEFFERUD> Reply-to: Geoff @ SRI-KA Last time i looged at the MIT-ML version of the MSGGROUP list, it was out of sync with the ISI version. 29-Apr-79 21:50:57-PDT,691;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-MULTICS rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1410-PST Date: 22 April 1979 17:10 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: MSGGROUP#1110 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) To: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI cc: Gaines at Rand-UNIX, PANKO at SRI-KL, msggroup at MIT-ML In-Reply-To: Msg of 04/22/79 15:54 from STEFFERUD The syntax of headers was setup so that when mail is sent to a distribution list in a file, the expanded list can be included in the header of the letter so that there would be no problem in relpying. I assume that this has fallen into disfavor because of so many systems that still do not parse headers and present only the digested version. 229-Apr-79 21:50:57-PDT,603;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-MULTICS rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1412-PST Date: 22 April 1979 17:12 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: MSGGROUP#1111 More on mailing lists To: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI cc: Gaines at Rand-UNIX, PANKO at SRI-KL, msggroup at MIT-ML In-Reply-To: Msg of 04/22/79 15:54 from STEFFERUD Note that msggroup at MIT-ML is not really a forwarded file in the sense that the ISI list is. It is a user id that as a favbor forwards the mail. This is different from the file on ISI that must be read by the mail sending program in order to send the letter in the first place. 229-Apr-79 21:50:57-PDT,679;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1452-PST Date: 22 April 1979 1732-EST (Sunday) From: Brian K. Reid Subject: MSGGROUP#1112 path names used as addresses To: : Include: "Mailing.List" at USC-ISI CC: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <22Apr79 173202 BR10@CMU-10A> In-Reply-To: Frankston.Frankston's message of 22 Apr 79 17:10 How soon we all forget. I think that the correct RFC733 syntax for using a file name as an address is To: :Include:"Mailing.List" at USC-ISI But I don't know what "correct" means any more. I wonder if CMU RDMAIL can process an address like that? I wonder if anybody else out there can? 29-Apr-79 21:50:57-PDT,1070;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1618-PST Date: 22 April 1979 19:06 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: MSGGROUP#1113 Re: path names used as addresses To: Brian K. Reid cc: ": Include: Mailing.List" at USC-ISI, MsgGroup at MIT-ML In-Reply-To: Msg of 04/22/79 17:44 from Brian K. Reid I guess I was thinking of the address list syntax rather than the :INCLUDE: syntax. However, I think that the include file syntax should normally result in including the actual list in the body of the letter to permit replying. One cannot, in general assume that the recipient can reference the specified file, or even that the file still exists. This expansion thould be option in the same way a bcc mechanism can protect the identity of the recipients. In a mail system I've implemetned under VM, the address file allows BCC: specification for individual recipients. In any cases, including the file name in the TO: list with no additional information serves as commentary but not much more. 229-Apr-79 21:50:57-PDT,508;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1632-PST Redistributed-Date: 22 April 1979 19:08 est Redistributed-By: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Redistributed-To: msggroup at MIT-ML Date: 22 April 1979 19:07 est From: Network_Server.Daemon at MIT-Multics Subject: MSGGROUP#1114 : Include: Mailing.List at USC-ISI -- Failed Reason: Mail was refused; reason given was: 950 Reason: An operator will attempt to deliver your mail. Your message will be returned under separate cover. 229-Apr-79 21:50:57-PDT,757;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1649-PST Date: 22 Apr 1979 1640-PST From: Feinler at SRI-KL (Jake Feinler) Subject: MSGGROUP#1115 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) To: JZS at CCA, STEFFERUD at USC-ISI cc: MsgGroup at MIT-ML, FEINLER In response to the message sent 22 APR 1979 1619-EST from JZS@CCA Ra3y's name reminds me of an old movie anecdote. Seems that Jean Harlow and Margot, who were intense rivals, were at the same dinner together. Each was trying to upstage the other. Jean kept referring to Margot as 'Mar-got' just to get her goat. Whereupon Margot is reputed to have said, 'Dahling, the 't' is silent, as in Harlow.' But I digress... Jake (silent as in MsgGrp - honest, I promise!) ------- 29-Apr-79 21:50:57-PDT,3970;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Apr-79 1756-PST Date: 22 April 1979 20:18-EST From: Charles Frankston Subject: MSGGROUP#1116 Synchronization of mailing lists To: msggroup at MIT-ML Date: 22 Apr 1979 1345-PST From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow Last time i looged at the MIT-ML version of the MSGGROUP list, it was out of sync with the ISI version. But of course, Geoff wouldn't think of telling us at what time or in what way the list was out of synch. After Stef makes an update to the master mailing list at ISI, he sends me a message to update the ML mailing list. This I generally do the first time I read his message. I also echo back the changes and version numbers to Stef as I do it. I will confess, I probably spend about 1/4 of my existence in a semi- comatose state during which I do not read my mail. In fact, of late I have found myself reading my mail as infrequently as once a day. Changes to the mailing list lately have almost been happening at the rate of once a day. This is a duty I will gladly pass on to a more conscientious person. I'll bet Geoff is logged in a whole lot more than I am, he would make a fine candidate. While I am maintaining the list however, I would prefer it if others did not edit it themselves. It is easy to do it wrong. Anyway, I am not volunteering to consistency check the list. Perhaps soon I will write something to automatically convert the Tenex format into one acceptable by ITS. In the meantime, you can all do your own consistency checks. Its really a lot of fun to fill up everybodies mailboxes with trivial messages about the mechanics of the distribution list. ;Should be up to date as of: [ISI]Mailing.List;194:, Hathaway@AMES-67, FIDDRR@AMES-67, Burchfiel@BBNA, DDeutsch@BBNA, Mathison@BBNA, Mooers@BBNA, Myer@BBNA, NMA@BBNA, Sandberg@BBNA, Day@BBNB, ;;;Turman@BBNB, ;non-existent INFOMEDIA@BBNC, Pool@BBNC, vonGehren@BBNC, JHaverty@BBND, Koncer@BBND, MTravers@BBND, Vittal@BBND, Swernofsky@BBND, MARS-Filer@CCA, JZS@CCA, Tom@CCA, RCT@CCA, Mark.Faust@CMUA, Rick.Gumpertz@CMUA, Lehman@CMUA, BZM@CMUA, Brian.Reid@CMUA, RdMail@CMUA, Wactlar@CMUA, Caine@ECL, Carlisle@ECL, Carlson@ECL, RDeMent@ECL, JMcHugh@ECL, Widener@ECL, Heiser@ECL, MacKenzie@ECL, vonMeister@ECL MSGGROUP@ISIA, Adams@ISIA, PBaran@ISIA, Broos@ISIA, Comport@ISIA, Goodwin@ISIA, Kirstein@ISIA, Schlaff@ISIA, Spivey@ISIA, Stefferud@ISIA, Tasker@ISIA, Walker@ISIA, Cohen@ISIB, Ellis@ISIB, Holg@ISIB, Postel@ISIB, Stotz@ISIB, Schill@ISIE, Finn@ISIE, Katz@ISIE, KLH@MIT-AI, Hewitt-Junk@MIT-AI, RMS@MIT-AI, JNC@MIT-AI MSGGRP@MIT-DMS, Vezza@MIT-DMS, Frankston@MIT-MULTICS, Palter@MIT-MULTICS,;;; Pogran@MIT-MULTICS, on vacation Sibert@MIT-Multics FFM@MIT-MC, FJW@MIT-MC, Sirbu@MIT-MC, CBF@MIT-MC, HIC@MIT-MC, RKJ@MIT-MC, RWK@MIT-MC, jbrown@MIT-MC, KENS@MIT-ML, Cotton@NBS-10, Watkins@NBS-10, ARMTE@OFFICE-1, DRXAL-HDA@OFFICE-1, DBall@OFFICE-1, Dames@OFFICE-1, Farber@SRI-KA, Grobstein@OFFICE-1, Sternberg@OFFICE-1, Taylor@OFFICE-1, Walsh@OFFICE-1, Zellich@OFFICE-1, Daniel@OFFICE-1 ;;;vonGehren@OFFICE-1, ;non-existent Engelbart@OFFICE-2, Jordan@OFFICE-2, Stone@OFFICE-2, Brotz@PARC-MAXC, Danielson@PARC-MAXC, AHenderson@PARC-MAXC, Karlton@PARC-MAXC, McDaniel@PARC-MAXC, White@PARC-MAXC, Anderson@RAND-UNIX, DCrocker@RAND-UNIX, Gaines@RAND-UNIX, Greep@RAND-UNIX, Kiessig@RAND-UNIX, GRM@RAND-UNIX, Szurko@RAND-UNIX, MLW@RAND-UNIX, Geoff@SRI-KA, Hewitt@SRI-KA, Ole@SRI-KA, Pine@SRI-KA, SDSAN-DMS@SRI-KA, Whallon@SRI-KA, Walters@SRI-KA, Bair@SRI-KL, LCampbell@SRI-KL, Feinler@SRI-KL, Gaschnig@SRI-KL, McLure@SRI-KL, Pickens@SRI-KL, Scott@SRI-KL, Foster@SRI-KL, Fylstra@SRI-KL, Meyers@SRI-KL, Lawrence@SRI-KL, Panko@SRI-KL, DGR@SU-AI, MRC@SU-AI, Kahler@SUMEX-AIM, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM, Blohm@SUMEX-AIM, Lauren@UCLA-SECURITY, Rudisin@UCLA-SECURITY, Steve@UCLA-SECURITY, David@UTEXAS, 29-Apr-79 21:50:58-PDT,2953;000000000001 Mail-from: USC-ISI rcvd at 22-Apr-79 2312-PST Date: 22 Apr 1979 2312-PST Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1117 [ISI]MAILING.LIST;195: Reformatted Subject: synchronizedd with MIT-ML list From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: [ISI]MAILING.LIST;195: Cc: [ISI]Recipients.Mailing-List;12: Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]22-Apr-79 23:12:29.STEFFERUD> Special-Handling: CHANGE DRXAL-HDA@Office-1 to be Rounds@Office-1 Special-Handling: CHANGE vonGehren@Office-1 to be vonGehren@BBN Special-Handling: CHANGE CFB@MIT-ML to be CBF@MIT-MC Special-Handling: ADD RWK@MIT-MC, HIC@MIT-MC, RJK@MIT-MC Special-Handling: ADD JNC@MIT-AI Special-Handling: DROP Pogran@MIT-Multics(vacation) [ISI]MAILING.LIST;195: FIDDRR@AMES-67, Hathaway@AMES-67, Burchfiel@BBNA, DDeutsch@BBNA, Mathison@BBNA, Mooers@BBNA, Myer@BBNA, NMA@BBNA, Sandberg@BBNA, Day@BBNB, INFOMEDIA@BBN, Pool@BBN, vonGehren@BBN, JHaverty@BBND, Koncer@BBND, Swernofsky@BBND, MTravers@BBND, Vittal@BBND, MARS-Filer@CCA, JZS@CCA, Tom@CCA, RCT@CCA, Mark.Faust@CMUA, Rick.Gumpertz@CMUA, Lehman@CMUA, BZM@CMUA, Brian.Reid@CMUA, RdMail@CMUA, Wactlar@CMUA, Caine@ECL, Carlisle@ECL, Carlson@ECL, RDeMent@ECL, Heiser@ECL, MacKenzie@ECL, JMcHugh@ECL, vonMeister@ECL, Widener@ECL, MSGGROUP@ISI, Adams@ISI, PBaran@ISI, Broos@ISI, Comport@ISI, Goodwin@ISI, Kirstein@ISI, Schlaff@ISI, Spivey@ISI, Stefferud@ISI, Tasker@ISI, Walker@ISI, Cohen@ISIB, Ellis@ISIB, Holg@ISIB, Postel@ISIB, Stotz@ISIB, Finn@ISIE, Katz@ISIE, Schill@ISIE, JNC@MIT-AI, KLH@MIT-AI, Hewitt-Junk@MIT-AI, RMS@MIT-AI, MSGGRP@MIT-DMS, Vezza@MIT-DMS, Frankston@MIT-MULTICS, Palter@MIT-MULTICS, Sibert@MIT-MULTICS, JBrown@MIT-MC, HIC@MIT-MC, CBF@MIT-MC, RKJ@MIT-MC, RK@MIT-MC, RWK@MIT-MC, FFM@MIT-MC, Sirbu@MIT-MC, FJW@MIT-MC, CBF@MIT-ML, KENS@MIT-ML, Cotton@NBS-10, Watkins@NBS-10, ARMTE@OFFICE-1, Daniel@OFFICE-1, DBall@OFFICE-1, Dames@OFFICE-1, Estok@OFFICE-1, Grobstein@OFFICE-1, Rounds@OFFICE-1, Sternberg@OFFICE-1, Taylor@OFFICE-1, Walsh@OFFICE-1, Zellich@OFFICE-1, Engelbart@OFFICE-2, Jordan@OFFICE-2, Stone@OFFICE-2, Brotz@PARC-MAXC, Danielson@PARC-MAXC, AHenderson@PARC-MAXC, Karlton@PARC-MAXC, McDaniel@PARC-MAXC, White@PARC-MAXC, Anderson@RAND-UNIX, DCrocker@RAND-UNIX, Gaines@RAND-UNIX, Greep@RAND-UNIX, Kiessig@RAND-UNIX, GRM@RAND-UNIX, Szurko@RAND-UNIX, MLW@RAND-UNIX, Farber@SRI-KA, Geoff@SRI-KA, Hewitt@SRI-KA, Ole@SRI-KA, Pine@SRI-KA, SDSAN-DMS@SRI-KA, Walters@SRI-KA, Whallon@SRI-KA, Bair@SRI-KL, LCampbell@SRI-KL, Feinler@SRI-KL, Foster@SRI-KL, Fylstra@SRI-KL, Meyers@SRI-KL, Gaschnig@SRI-KL, Lawrence@SRI-KL, McLure@SRI-KL, Panko@SRI-KL, Pickens@SRI-KL, Scott@SRI-KL, MRC@SU-AI, DGR@SU-AI, Blohm@SUMEX-AIM, Kahler@SUMEX-AIM, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM, Lauren@UCLA-SECURITY, Rudisin@UCLA-SECURITY, Steve@UCLA-SECURITY, David@UTEXAS 29-Apr-79 21:50:58-PDT,3320;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 23-Apr-79 1805-PST From: Grm at Rand-Unix Date: 23 Apr 1979 at 1749-PST To: mackenzie at Usc-Ecl cc: msggroup at Mit-Mc From-the-tty-of: Gary R. Martins .:. Subject: MSGGROUP#1118 Using EM Systems .:. Kevin - Who says you missed any points in the first place ? Not I. A lot of strong heads have spent a lot of time on improved writing schemes of all kinds. It is simply not obvious to everyone that technology doesn't offer much real help for the kinds of problems that we'd like to solve in this area. You ask what is the uniqueness of this medium; is it just another version of biz letters and journals.... ? Well, I don't have to be able to define it to experience it; there are lots of unique benefits to netmail, and I exploit them both consciously and otherwise every day. The w.r.i.t.t.e.n record is a very important aspect of this medium, of course -- makes a netmsg something very different from a phone call, no ? (The fact that something similar can be done with voice (at what cost ?) does not in the slightest reduce the importance of such records.) But your real concern is to make it easier for the 'time- pressed typist' to emit effective messages. Is that a technological issue ? I personally doubt it. Would we seek to make the piano easier to play by putting more keys on it ? More to the point: is there any reason to think that electronic music machines will make it easier to write GOOD music ? Do automatic transmissions and power steering turn their owners into GOOD drivers ? Do the latest in exotic rackets make their users into GOOD tennis players ? Does possession of the finest running shoes make one a GOOD runner ? We would all love to answer YES to these questions; it is one of our most cherished illusions that skill and talent and character and happiness..... can be PURCHASED (or at least LEASED). Whole (big) industries are built on this sort of illusion. But we all know that there is no hope of such miracles. Automatic transmissions make it easier for just about anybody to drive...easier for both good and bad drivers; but they do not magically transform one kind of driver into the other. The same is true more generally for technological advances; even for programming. It is being discovered all over the place that 'structured code' etc. cannot make good programmers out of bad ones! (Even the '$6M Man' had to work hard to master the shiny new prostheses of which he is composed.) Your note refers several times to the poor 'typist'. Actually, the problem is not confined to keystroke-input systems. What percentage of people you know are really good at speaking in a coherent fashion ? People muddle through the average face-to- face situation, partly because the bandwidth is very high. But under stress (speaking before large groups, speaking under severe time constraints...), the same faults show up that appear in net msgs: incoherence, meandering, lack of balance,.... It may even be that the keyboard interface helps! By forcing us to slow down, it gives us an opportunity (up to us to use it, of course!) to do some THINKING: organization, control of saliency, etc. Regards! Gary 29-Apr-79 21:50:58-PDT,364;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 23-Apr-79 1837-PST Date: 23 April 1979 2128-EST (Monday) From: Brian K. Reid Subject: MSGGROUP#1119 Re: Using EM Systems .:. To: Grm at Rand-Unix CC: msggroup at Mit-Mc Message-ID: <23Apr79 212837 BR10@CMU-10A> In-Reply-To: Grm's message of 23 Apr 79 20:49 Would somebody PLEASE explain those .:. dots 29-Apr-79 21:50:58-PDT,2098;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 23-Apr-79 1948-PST From: Grm at Rand-Unix Date: 23 Apr 1979 at 1914-PST To: BR10 at Cmu-10a cc: msggroup at Mit-Mc From-the-tty-of: Gary R. Martins .:. Subject: MSGGROUP#1120 Dots Before Your Eyes... .:. Brian - Lordy, how those .:. dots have brought in the mail !! I have asked folks to let me know if they foul up systems, and have not yet had a single positive reply; so my guilt about these .:. dots is still rather low. Is the world ready for THE EXPLANATION ? Well, then, here it is: I have found that often the SUBJECT field of msgs gets buried, lost in all that other cruddery that headers are made of. Soooooo, I wanted to find an innocent means of making the SUBJECT field more recognizable -- a means of highlighting it. Well, you can't just put blank lines around it, right ? Most msg parsers look for a ':' as a field delimiter. But most also seem to want a char or two BESIDES the colon, otherwise they assume the the current line is a continuation of the preceding ..... etc. So I am given the colon, and now have only to decide on the most INCONSPICUOUS chars to accompany it --- my goal being to put something mighty like a blank line before and after the SUBJECT line. Well, the '.' seemed like a natural -- you can hardly see 'em at all if you don't look real close. So, there you have it! Highlight lines consisting of '.:.', only this and nothing more ! Are they legal ? Are they 'decent' ? Aren't they cute ? Well, they seem to do the job -- you have to admit that the SUBJECT field of my msgs is real easy to find, right ? And -- here's a big IF -- IF they don't foul up people's msgs systems, then they seem like an innocent decoration, if nothing more. Comments ? Gary PS - Hackers with an interest in the state of systems development around the time of the Civil War are urged to consult 'The Latest Developments In Artillery' by Artemus T. Ward. 29-Apr-79 21:50:58-PDT,1099;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 23-Apr-79 1950-PST Date: 23 April 1979 2220-EST (Monday) From: Brian K. Reid Subject: MSGGROUP#1121 Re: Dots Before Your Eyes... .:. To: Grm at Rand-Unix CC: msggroup at Mit-Mc Message-ID: <23Apr79 222011 BR10@CMU-10A> In-Reply-To: Grm's message of 23 Apr 79 22:14 Our approach is to let RDMAIL do the messing with the header. It parses them, then displays them the way I want. I suspect that the dots are quite illegal. The most innocuous sequence that you could use for this purpose is () Although a completely blank header line is the end of the header and the beginning of the body of the message, there is nothing at all wrong with the generation of a "fake" blank line by using instead of just . This line will look blank, yet will not be empty, and therefore will not signal the end of the header. Of course, if you have a mail system that has incorrectly, erroneously, and wrongly decided to break the header on a line, then you're in trouble. Brian 29-Apr-79 21:50:58-PDT,1151;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 23-Apr-79 2017-PST Date: 23 April 1979 23:05-EST From: Charles Frankston Subject: MSGGROUP#1122 Re: Dots Before Your Eyes... .:. To: MSGGROUP at MIT-MC Although a completely blank header line is the end of the header and the beginning of the body of the message, there is nothing at all wrong with the generation of a "fake" blank line by using instead of just . This line will look blank, yet will not be empty, and therefore will not signal the end of the header. Of course, if you have a mail system that has incorrectly, erroneously, and wrongly decided to break the header on a line, then you're in trouble. Ahem. I protest. I think the use of fake blank lines in that fashion highly unaesthetic. Not to mention the number of people it will cause to complain that their mail system is broken. Frankly, my opinion is one of the reasons GRM needs to highlight his Subject and From fields is because they are not in their recommended order near the beginning of the header. 29-Apr-79 21:50:58-PDT,431;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 23-Apr-79 2039-PST Date: 23 Apr 1979 2027-PST (Monday) From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: MSGGROUP#1123 dots and dots To: MSGGROUP at ML I personally finds the .:. to be very unaesthetic also. I'm all for individuality in messages -- but there are enough problems with header standards without something like that thrown in for good measure. --Lauren-- ------- 29-Apr-79 21:50:58-PDT,337;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 23-Apr-79 2044-PST From: Gaines at Rand-Unix Date: 23 Apr 1979 at 2035-PST To: Grm at Rand-Unix cc: msggroup at Mit-Mc, BR10 at Cmu-10a Subject: MSGGROUP#1124 Re: Dots Before Your Eyes... .:. In-reply-to: Your message of 23 Apr 1979 at 1914-PST. And all this time I thought they were propellors! 29-Apr-79 21:50:59-PDT,714;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 23-Apr-79 2056-PST Via: Date: 23 Apr 79 23:25-EST (Mon) From: Dcrocker at UDEE Reply-to: Dcrocker at Rand-Unix To: msggroup at mit-mc Subject: MSGGROUP#1125 distinguished subject matter (Really for Gary Martins): The .:. doesn't cause either of the systems I use to hiccup, but your use of them separators does have a particular meaning you don7t intend. Because you preface the string with a space (or tab) (or two), the line is, technically, a continuation of the preceding field. Ergo, for example, the second of the separators get included in a reply message's subject field. You should be able to have .:. Subject: .:. Dave., 29-Apr-79 21:50:59-PDT,613;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 23-Apr-79 2213-PST Date: 24 April 1979 01:06 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: MSGGROUP#1126 Re: distinguished subject matter To: Dcrocker at Rand-UNIX cc: msggroup at MIT-MC In-Reply-To: Msg of 04/23/79 23:53 from Dcrocker For Gary Martins, emphasising Dave's point. The .:. is paresed as a continuation line by the Multics read_mail program resulting in an embedded newline in the subject field. This results in an unaesthetic summary listing of the subject fields. Yes, your subjects are highlighted, but at the expense of other subjects. 29-Apr-79 21:50:59-PDT,1042;000000000000 Mail-from: STEFFERUD filed at 23-Apr-79 2226-PST Date: 23 Apr 1979 2226-PST Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1127 [Anonymous: Ra3y and silent numbers] From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]23-Apr-79 22:26:22.STEFFERUD> The recent levity in MsgGroup certainly contrasts with the seriousness of much that has preceeded, and leads me to observe that we have let this work become too dealy dull for my tastes. Thus I was delighted to receive the following, which the sender requests be passed along with anonymity. Begin forwarded message - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 485 chars/135 Subject: Ra3y Date: 23 Apr 1979 0039-PST From: ANON To: Stefferud at ISI I seem to recall a Tom Lehrer bit about an individualist named Henry who actually spelled it H E N 3 R Y. The 3 being silent. (This same Hen3ry was quoted as saying: "Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.") ------- End forwarded message 29-Apr-79 21:50:59-PDT,315;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 0356-PST Date: 24 APR 1979 0649-EST From: FFM at MIT-MC (Steven J. Kudlak) Subject: MSGGROUP#1128 dots before my eyes... To: msggroup at MIT-ML, grm at RAND-UNIX I actually thought they were Celtic Runes wishing me peace,love and happiness. Havefun sends Steve 29-Apr-79 21:50:59-PDT,608;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 0458-PST Date: 24 April 1979 07:41-EST From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." Subject: MSGGROUP#1129 Using EM Systems To: Grm at RAND-UNIX, mackenzie at USC-ECL cc: msggroup at MIT-ML The trouble with most of your examples is that they refer to activities where the primary aim and source of satisfaction is in the doing (e.g. running, playing tennis). For many of us, the goal is not simply to write messages for their own sake, but to convey information to someone else. Keyboard systems are a limitation on the rate at which we can do that. 29-Apr-79 21:50:59-PDT,1773;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 1312-PST Date: 24 Apr 1979 1210-PST Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1130 [koncer: 4% drop in office productivity Subject: in past 10 years] From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: MSGGROUP at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]24-Apr-79 12:10:37.STEFFERUD> Before we barrage this new interesting question to death with opinions and speculation, I would like to see if someone can provide us with the specific substantive information requested by Daryl. The issue is really quite vital, and thus I ask your indulgence. Thanks - Stef Begin forwarded message - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 950 chars/ 1 Subject: 4 % drop in office productivity in past 10 years Date: 24 Apr 1979 1427-EST From: koncer - - Sender: KONCER at BBN-TENEXD To: stefferud at ISI Cc: koncer hi stef - i read the results of american institute of engineers (dec. 7-9 , 1977) conference. the title of the article is "you won't recognize tomorrow" by richard o. baily of lextron corp. in this article he states that there has been a drop of 4% in office productivity in the past 10 years. i asked richard baily how he derived this figure. he said that he used a stanford research institute study of 1975 for these figures. he doesn't have a copy. i need to locate this study and understand how this figure was derived. what kind of office analysis was done ? can you distribute this message to someone at sri or the message group? thanks - daryl *** TRAILER *** Message-ID: <[BBN-TENEXD]24-Apr-79 14:27:04.KONCER> Mail-from: BBN-TENEXD rcvd at 24-Apr-79 1200-PST *** END Subject: 4 % drop in office productivity in past 10 years/# 1 End forwarded message 29-Apr-79 21:50:59-PDT,593;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 1353-PST Via: Date: 24 Apr 79 11:46-EST (Tues) From: Dcrocker at UDEE Reply-to: Dcrocker at Rand-Unix To: msggroup at mit-ml Subject: MSGGROUP#1131 legality of .:. What Gary is doing IS LEGAL. Period is NOT a reserved character. A field name may contain ANY sequence of characters (at least one character) which is not a control, space (redundant, since space is a control character) or a colon. The aesthetics of Gary's use is a different issue. I figure it's ok, since Gary's pretty strange anyhow... Dave. 29-Apr-79 21:50:59-PDT,480;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 1414-PST 24-APR-79 16:44:26,363 Date: 24 APR 1979 1644-EST Subject: MSGGROUP#1132 Re: legality of .:. From: JZS at CCA (Joanne Sattley) .: legality of .:. To: DCrocker@Rand-Unix Cc: MsgGroup@MIT-ML In response to your message sent Tue, 24 Apr 79 11:46-EST ".:." WOULD be legal if it were left-justified. The space in the first position, according to RFC#733, makes it a continuation of the previous field. ------- 29-Apr-79 21:50:59-PDT,1375;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 1550-PST From: Grm at Rand-Unix Date: 24 Apr 1979 at 1533-PST To: msggroup at Mit-Ml From-the-tty-of: Gary R. Martins .:. Subject: MSGGROUP#1133 THEM DOTS ! .:. Ladies & Gentlemen - We're probably all up to our eyeballs in dots these days; please allow me one further word of explanation: The '.:.' hieroglyphs are being treated by many mail systems as continuations of the preceding header lines BECAUSE THEY APPEAR WITH A PRECEDING BLANK. Well, all I can say is THAT'S NOT HOW I SEND THEM OUT ! When they leave my tty they begin in col. 1 -- at the leftmost margin of the msg. Somehow they are getting reformatted for general distribution -- it must be that is processing them so as to prefix a blank. That unintended leading blank is then triggering all kinds of unwanted interpretations by mail systems. Believe me, I had no special symbolism in mind when I first cranked up the '.:.' sequence. But it seems to conjure up really interesting images in peoples' heads -- including my own! This is my chance to thank all of you who have taken the time to suggest interpretations: peace, love, happiness, propellers..... As for having to taste my own medicine: if I weren't willing, I wouldn't prescribe! Peace, love, happiness, and propellers to all! .:.Gary.:. 29-Apr-79 21:51:00-PDT,618;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 1629-PST Date: 24 April 1979 1905-EST (Tuesday) From: Brian K. Reid Subject: MSGGROUP#1134 Re: THEM DOTS ! .:. To: Grm at Rand-Unix CC: msggroup at Mit-Ml Message-ID: <24Apr79 190535 BR10@CMU-10A> In-Reply-To: Grm's message of 24 Apr 79 18:33 Send me (REID at CMU-10A) a copy of a message with the dost the way you want them. I am absolutely certain that CMU's mailer is not messing with the headers when the mail arrives, and I have a nagging suspicion that Rand-Unix's outgoing mailer is doing it. But I await the arrival of a sample msg. 29-Apr-79 21:51:00-PDT,290;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 1918-PST Date: 24 APR 1979 1909-PST From: POSTEL at USC-ISIB Subject: MSGGROUP#1135 re: legality & strangeness To: Msggroup at MIT-ML Dave Crocker: Is that why "Via: ..." is ok, cause you are pretty strange anyhow... --jon. ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:00-PDT,741;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 1937-PST Date: 24 APR 1979 2207-EST From: JZS at CCA (Joanne Sattley) Subject: MSGGROUP#1136 MIT-ML remailer absolved. Subject: Note subject-field of enclosed message. /Joanne To: Grm at RAND-UNIX cc: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Net Mail-from: site MIT-ML rcvd at 24-APR-79 16:56:56 24-APR-79 16:44:26,363 Date: 24 APR 1979 1644-EST From: JZS at CCA (Joanne Sattley) .: legality of .:. To: DCrocker@Rand-Unix Cc: MsgGroup@MIT-ML In response to your message sent Tue, 24 Apr 79 11:46-EST ".:." WOULD be legal if it were left-justified. The space in the first position, according to RFC#733, makes it a continuation of the previous field. ------- ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:00-PDT,549;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 1959-PST Date: 24 APR 1979 1923-PST From: POSTEL at USC-ISIB Subject: MSGGROUP#1137 Dots In Col 1. To: msggroup at MIT-ML i would suggest that some one is doing Gary a supreme favor in moving his dots out of column one. When using the FTP MAIL command the end of mail is indicated by the sequence , that has caught users enough times that several hosts have hacked their mail sending programs to force a blank in before any line begining with a . --jon. ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:00-PDT,451;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 2019-PST Date: 24 April 1979 22:29 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: MSGGROUP#1138 Re: THEM DOTS ! .:. To: Brian K. Reid cc: Grm at Rand-UNIX, msggroup at MIT-ML In-Reply-To: Msg of 04/24/79 19:19 from Brian K. Reid I suspect the leading space is being put in before the "." by the outgoing system that is using MAIL instead of MLFL and is paranoid. ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:00-PDT,592;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 2036-PST Date: 24 April 1979 2254-EST (Tuesday) From: Brian K. Reid Subject: MSGGROUP#1139 Re: THEM DOTS ! .:. To: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics CC: Grm at Rand-UNIX, msggroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <24Apr79 225430 BR10@CMU-10A> In-Reply-To: Frankston.Frankston's message of 24 Apr 79 22:29 Aha! end of mystery! The MAIL protocol treats as end-of-file. Many mailers use only the MAIL protocol, and not MLFL! Rand's mailer is the guilty party. Thank you Frankston.Frankston. Brian ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:00-PDT,1015;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-Apr-79 2114-PST Date: 24 Apr 79 20:59-PST (Tue) Subject: MSGGROUP#1140 Re: THEM DOTS ! .:. From: Greep at Rand-Unix To: MsgGroup at Mit-Ml Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Multitudinous messages I can see that I made a mistake by letting my mail go for more than two hours without checking it. I could saved people the effort of determining by process of elimination that the Rand-Unix mailer inserts a blank at the beginning of a line whose first character is a period. Here is the guilty party! I did this because there appeared to be problems with some hosts merely checking for any line beginning with a period and not verifying the absence of any further characters up to the CRLF. There was a newer version of the mailer that tried MLFL before MAIL, but I never got a chance to finish working on it (work got held up by an NCP bug, which I have since fixed, that had the curious effect of keeping MLFL from working). ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:00-PDT,539;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 25-Apr-79 0728-PST Date: 25 Apr 1979 0718-PST From: Mark Crispin Subject: MSGGROUP#1141 BANANARD and MSG To: MsgGroup at MIT-MC I just got access to ISI, and one of the first things I played with was the various Tenex message systems (over at SCORE we are almost exclusively MM fans). Maybe one of the Tenex experts can answer this one: what is the difference between BANANARD and MSG? They appear to be essentially the same program, same commands, etc. -- M ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:00-PDT,1697;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 25-Apr-79 1856-PST Date: 25 Apr 1979 1834-PST Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: MSGGROUP#1142 Office Productivity From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]Mailing.List;193: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]25-Apr-79 18:34:40.PANKO> There is no question that general US productivity is low and that office productivity is in worse shape. The question is how much. According to the Bureau of the Census, total productivity has been rising about 20% every 10 years, while manufacturing productivity has been rising about 28%--still miserable. Office productivity, or more precisely productivity in the white collar segment has been rising about 4% every ten years. As with most things, the famous SRI study quoted a lot of things without referencing them and then, unfortunately, became a widely quoted source. Office productivity, unfortunately, has only been measured imprecisely by the Bureau of the Census, because of definitional quirks. More relevant is a study done about three years ago by the Bureau of the Census. It looked only at a limited sample of office work in the Federal Government, but it provides the only really solid data we have. That study found about a 14% per decade gain in productivity. Virtually all of this came about, it appears, because of office automation. Office Automation? Yes, indeed; don't forget that the term office automation was coined in the mid '50s to mean computers. Businesses and government are now spending about 40 billion dollars a year (this is rough) on computers, and most of this is designed to automate office workers. Office automation is already here, and in considerable force. 29-Apr-79 21:51:01-PDT,465;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 25-Apr-79 2058-PST Date: 25 April 1979 23:48-EST From: Steven J. Tepper Subject: MSGGROUP#1143 Re: Office Productivity To: PANKO at SRI-KL cc: MSGGROUP at MIT-MC Having worked for the federal government, I find it hard to believe that there is any correlation at all between productivity in the government and in the rest of the world. Where I worked, nobody did anything because nobody had anything to do. 29-Apr-79 21:51:01-PDT,406;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 26-Apr-79 0704-PST Date: 26 Apr 1979 0658-PST From: Dames at OFFICE-2 Subject: MSGGROUP#1144 Re: Office Productivity To: GREEP at MIT-MC, PANKO at SRI-KL cc: MSGGROUP at MIT-MC, DAMES In response to the message sent 25 April 1979 23:48-EST from GREEP@MIT-MC i'm curious just where did you work in the govt? t. dames ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:01-PDT,1155;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 26-Apr-79 0756-PST Date: 26 Apr 1979 0741-PST Sender: SDSAN-DMS at SRI-KA Subject: MSGGROUP#1145 Re: Office Productivity From: SDSAN-DMS at SRI-KA To: GREEP at MIT-MC Cc: PANKO at SRI-KL, MSGGROUP at MIT-MC Message-ID: <[SRI-KA]26-Apr-79 07:41:56.SDSAN-DMS> In-Reply-To: Your message of 25 April 1979 23:48-EST I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND I AM PROUD OF IT. I FIND ENOUGH TO DO TO KEEP ME PRODUCTIVELY OCCUPIED 12 TO 15 HOURS PER DAY. I GET PAID FOR 8 OF IT. I HAVE OBSERVED THAT SOME PEOPLE TEND TO GRAVITATE TOWARD THE ENVIRONMENT YOU SPEAK ABOUT AND IT COULD BE THAT FATE JUST BROUGHT YOUR GROUP TOGETHER. MY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT HAS ENGINEERED STANDARDS, WE BID ON OUR WORKLOAD, AND ALL COSTS ARE CHARGED TO THE WORK UNIT. WASTED MANHOURS, SUPPLIES, ETC., WOULD PRICE US OUT OF BUSINESS. PEOPLE WHO REFER SO BROADLY TO "THE GOVERNMENT" AND "THE BUREAUCRACY" MAKE ME LAUGH. NO SEGMENT HAS A CORNER ON THE BUREAUCRACY MARKET. I AM FAMILIAR WITH SPECIFIC CORPORATIONS WITH PAPERWORK THREE TIMES THAT OF "GOVERNMENT" (MY ORGANIZATION ANYWAY). TOM 29-Apr-79 21:51:01-PDT,461;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Apr-79 0856-PST Date: 28 April 1979 1145-EST (Saturday) From: Richard H. Gumpertz Subject: MSGGROUP#1146 motor vehicle analogies To: Feinler at sri-kl CC: MsgGroup at mit-ml Message-ID: <28Apr79 114554 RG02@CMU-10A> Then of course there is the Hermes bulldozer, 18 wheel truck, and tank (all rolled into one) which some people like to use because noone would dare get in its way. Rick 29-Apr-79 21:51:01-PDT,881;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Apr-79 0913-PST Date: 28 Apr 1979 0902-PST From: Bair at SRI-KL (James Bair) Subject: MSGGROUP#1147 Re: [koncer: 4% drop in office productivity Subject: in past 10 years] To: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI, MSGGROUP at MIT-ML cc: BAIR In response to the message sent 24 Apr 1979 1210-PST from STEFFERUD@USC-ISI As far as I know the office productivity changes were published by Alan Purchase (who does not use computer mail). Purchase, an SRI economist, derived the figures for a proprietary project. They are a 4% INCREASE in office productivity in the past 10 yrs based on a $2K capital investment per office worker. I will ask Alan for more details. Most of our statistics are based on analysis of US Dept. of Labor publications, in particular, the US Statistical Abstracts. Jim Bair ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:01-PDT,665;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Apr-79 1017-PST Date: 28 Apr 1979 0956-PST Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1148 Let's raise the level of MsgGroup discussion From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]28-Apr-79 09:56:12.STEFFERUD> HI All - I think it is time for us to raise the level of discussion in MsgGroup. Header-People@MIT-MC is a better place for bull session type comments. MsgGroup is not a bull session. Its members include a wide range of people who are seriously trying to consider the important issues of network message systems. Discretion remains the better part of valor. Stef 29-Apr-79 21:51:01-PDT,421;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Apr-79 1337-PST Date: 28 Apr 1979 1308-PST From: Meyers at SRI-KL (Harris A. Meyers) Subject: MSGGROUP#1149 Re: Let's raise the level of MsgGroup discussion To: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI, MsgGroup at MIT-ML In-reply-to: Your message of 28-Apr-79 0956-PST As a new commer to MsgGroup, could someone explain the difference between MsgGroup and Header-people thanks, harris ------- 29-Apr-79 21:51:01-PDT,382;000000000000 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Apr-79 2310-PST Date: 29 April 1979 01:49 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics (Bob Frankston) Subject: MSGGROUP#1150 ftp quoting To: msggroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <790429064956.599387 at MIT-Multics> PS: I know about quoting in RFC733. The question is an FTP question -- how does this quoting get represented in the ftp field. 29-Apr-79 23:48:15-PDT,6338;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 29-Apr-79 2235-PDT Date: 29 Apr 1979 2200-PDT Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1151 SURVEY [isi]proceedings.msg#1101-#1150 From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]29-Apr-79 22:00:35.STEFFERUD> Survey of Messages in [ISI]PROCEEDINGS.MSG#1101-1150 MSGGROUP#1101 Survey [ISIA]PROCEEDINGS.MSG#1051-#1100 6126 chars 20 Apr 1979 1859-PST From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI MSGGROUP#1102 Computer Networks Publication 343 chars 21 April 1979 01:38 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Mu MSGGROUP#1103 Re: Computer Networks Publication 849 chars 21 Apr 1979 0003-PST From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI MSGGROUP#1104 More to Follow 1582 chars 21 Apr 1979 1014-PST From: PANKO at SRI-KL MSGGROUP#1105 One Marketing Function Definition Re: More to Follow 1083 chars 21 Apr 1979 1233-PST From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI MSGGROUP#1106 Ra3y 557 chars 21 Apr 1979 at 2144-PST From: Gaines at Rand-Unix MSGGROUP#1107 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) 1750 chars 22 Apr 1979 1254-PST From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI MSGGROUP#1108 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) 451 chars 22 APR 1979 1619-EST From: JZS at CCA (Joanne Sattley) MSGGROUP#1109 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) 538 chars 22 Apr 1979 1345-PST From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow MSGGROUP#1110 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) 691 chars 22 April 1979 17:10 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Mu MSGGROUP#1111 More on mailing lists 603 chars 22 April 1979 17:12 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Mu MSGGROUP#1112 path names used as addresses 679 chars 22 April 1979 1732-EST (Sunday) From: Brian K. Reid Mailing.List at USC-ISI -- Failed 508 chars 22 April 1979 19:07 est From: Network_Server.Daemon at MIT- MSGGROUP#1115 Re: Ra3y (& path-names for address list names) 757 chars 22 Apr 1979 1640-PST From: Feinler at SRI-KL (Jake Feinler) MSGGROUP#1116 Synchronization of mailing lists 3970 chars 22 April 1979 20:18-EST From: Charles Frankston MAILING.LIST;195: Reformatted synchronizedd with MIT-ML list 2953 chars 22 Apr 1979 2312-PST From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI MSGGROUP#1118 Using EM Systems .:. 3320 chars 23 Apr 1979 at 1749-PST From: Grm at Rand-Unix MSGGROUP#1119 Re: Using EM Systems .:. 364 chars 23 April 1979 2128-EST (Monday) From: Brian K. Reid Is there any quoting convention for names in the ftp mail recipient field? I.e. If I want to parse out "foo at bar at frob" (or foo.at.bar at frob) how can I protect the first "at" or ".at." from the parsing? 29-Apr-79 23:48:15-PDT,939;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Apr-79 2338-PST Date: 28 Apr 79 23:27-PST (Sat) Subject: MSGGROUP#1153 Re: ftp quoting From: Greep at Rand-Unix To: Frankston.Frankston at Mit-Multics (Bob Frankston) cc: msggroup at Mit-Ml Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Messages of 29 Apr by Frankston.Frankston In-Reply-To: <790429064915.778859 at MIT-Multics> and In-Reply-To: 29 Apr by Frankston.Frankston In-Reply-To: <790429064956.599387 at MIT-Multics> The hostname does not appear at all in the MAIL (or MLFL) command - the server FTP had better know what host it is. For example, when I send this message my mailer will connect to the MIT-Multics server FTP and (after the losing Multics login nonsense) send the command "MAIL Frankston.Frankston". If your message said it was from "Foo at Bar at Frob", my mailer would connect to Frob and (if it could handle it correctly) send "MAIL Foo at Bar". 29-Apr-79 23:48:16-PDT,469;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Apr-79 2352-PST Date: 29 April 1979 02:32 est From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: MSGGROUP#1154 Re: ftp quoting To: Greep at Rand-UNIX cc: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics (Bob Frankston), msggroup at MIT-ML In-Reply-To: Msg of 04/29/79 02:29 from Greep Yeah, I know that To: foo at bar at frob becomes MAIL foo at bar BUt how does that get distinguished from To: "foo at bar" at frob 29-Apr-79 23:48:16-PDT,2251;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 29-Apr-79 2020-PDT Date: 29 Apr 1979 1954-PDT Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: MSGGROUP#1155 The Marketing Principle From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]Mailing.List;193: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]29-Apr-79 19:54:49.PANKO> In an earlier message, Stef gave his definition of marketing. It was essentially the same as "The Marketing Principle," which is a philosophy of the firm taught in marketing courses. The marketing principle is usually stated something like this: "First, know your customer's needs and wants; then design your market offering to fit those needs and wants." A few comments are in order. First, the heart of the matter is knowing the customer's needs and wants. Have we really done that in the ARPANET community? I feel that the answer is "No, for ereasons I will go into in a future message. After we know those needs and wants, we must create a market offering. An offering is a package of things: product, services, price, distribution, and promotion -- all geared to some core strategy that we have for meeting the consumer's needs and wants. The customer, of course, could care less about our problems in structuring an offer. The customer is purchasing a package of "benefits," not a product; our offer must be geared to producing the benefits the customer will purchase. The Marketing Principle is user oriented, but it is not philantrophy. Rather it is recognition of the fact that users of all products and services today have many ways to satisfy their needs and wants; so if you want to succeed financially, you have to understand their needs BETTER than your competitors and better than companies in industries outside yours that serve the same basic needs (facsimile, for instance). In future messages, I will be commenting on a number of points about the Marketing Principle, but I will try to begin with and focus upon the first part of the problem: understanding users' needs and wants. Basically, I will focus on two alternative paths to knowledge. The first will be the use of general principles that seem to be relevant to most marketing situations. The second will be marketing research. Aloha, Ra3y (the 3 is silent) 29-Apr-79 23:48:16-PDT,1391;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 29-Apr-79 2032-PDT Date: 29 April 1979 2316-EDT (Sunday) From: Brian K. Reid Subject: MSGGROUP#1156 Marketing Electronic Mail To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <29Apr79 231639 BR10@CMU-10A> In-Reply-To: <[SRI-KL]29-Apr-79 19:54:49.PANKO> Ra3y Panko looked at the marketing aspects of electronic mail, but I get an uneasy feeling about anticipating the "needs and wants" of users who don't have a glimmer of an idea what this technology is all about. You can't identify wants in people who have never heard of your product, and who have absolutely no concept of what your product will do for them. Selling electronic mail to the average business right now is sort of like selling FM radios during the Civil war. If the "user community" whose needs and wants are being pandered to is the ARPAnet community and not the general business community, it seems to me that this problem still exists. Electronic mail is just not well enough understood by anybody yet for most users to have anything resembling reasonable wants. In my opinion, computer mail systems are still at the stage where it would be a crime to restrict them to do what unimaginative and conservative users think that they want instead of what creative and eccentric system designers can think up. Wait until we have a product, *then* market it. 30-Apr-79 17:30:02-PDT,5380;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 30-Apr-79 0119-PDT Date: 30 Apr 1979 0047-PDT Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1157 A review of MsgGroup and its purposes Subject: Re: Let's raise the level of MsgGroup dis... From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]30-Apr-79 00:47:04.STEFFERUD> In-Reply-To: Your message of 28 Apr 1979 1308-PST Reference: MSGGROUP#1149 From: Meyers@SRI-KL Good question - What is the difference between MsgGroup and Header-People? I can speak for MsgGroup, which I will, but I must leave the description of Header-People to its organizers and proponents. --------- MsgGroup was established in June of 1975 after netmail had become a reality, and about the time that MSG crystalized and BBN had embarked on HERMES development. Other message system developments were undertaken around this time too, such as MSGDMS at MIT-DMS and RDMAIL at CMUA. The ITS systems must have had their origins in this same time period. Citation of each and every system born at that time should not be needed here. The purpose of MsgGroup was, and still is, to explore netmail from a users point of view through discussion of issues among the message system development and application community within the ARPANET. As stated in the MsgGroup Introduction Message, kept as the first message in [isi]message.txt: . "The purpose of MsgGroup is to hold an informal teleconference on the subject of message systems, as they might be, as they should be, and how we can get there from where we are." The initial membership included some managers, some users, some customers (who were paying some of the bills), some implementators, and some hackers. The range of members remains about the same as in the original mailing lists. Although implementation issues have often surfaced, the purpose of MsgGroup has never been to provide a forum for implementation debates or detailed problem chasing in exisitng systems. On occasion specific problems have been uncovered in MsgGroup discussions, but chasing them down was done though side discussions among directly involved implementors and maintainers. The recent questions about productivity and marketing, are clearly within the spirit and purpose of MsgGroup. Earlier flaming on the subject of FINGER was originally focused directly on issues of correct system behavior viewed from the user environment perspective. Questions about RFC733 and its longevity are in the interests of the whole community of users, customers and implementors. Then our discussion about the lack of interoperability among exisitng systems (as evidenced by various message header formats giving different people different kinds of painful problems) was certainly on the right subject, but the personal jibes and the graduate student bull session atmosphere went beyond the original intentions of MsgGroup, and certainly beyond what the great majority of MsgGroup members want to see flowing through their mailboxes. The spectacle may have been interesting from a social observer's perspective, but the character of the discussion was not acceptable beyond the level of "Gee whiz, did you see that?" MsgGroup discussions are organized into a semi-public record, which comes close to that of a quasi-journal, though there is no refereeing. As the coordinator and keeper of the files I feel some strong compulsions to keep the record from becoming uncivil or unacceptable for public review. I have suggested at times that certain pointless or inflamitory messages be withdrawn, but I have never prohibited anyone from persisting if they wanted to enter their contribution into the record by directly distributing it to the mailing list. Sponteneity and informatlity have been important factors in the productivity of MsgGroup, but fast draw personality clashes are inhibiting the free flow of good ideas. Asking a properly framed and carefully placed question on productivity is exactly what we want to facilitate. Introduction of the MIT-ML COMSAT distribution mechanism into MsgGroup has increased the sponteneity and informality, at the expense of my ability to influence the quality of the contributions. Of late they have tended to include all sorts of flotsam and jetsam that really should be in side discussions, and out of the MsgGroup record. Chasing down the GRM dots (.:.) is one example, and the most recent exchange on "ftp quoting" is another. These kinds of quick response, telegrphic, limited context exchanges should be conducted in private side discussions. In the past, I would have inhibited distribution of these exchanges by withholding them, and asking the participants to consider keeping them private. I do not have any way to do this now with the MIT-ML COMSAT distribution mechanism, so I am appealling to you all to consider your contributions more carefully, and use other more private channels for non-quasi-journal discussions. Header-People@MIT-MC, which also uses the MIT-MC COMSAT mechanism, has been well used for such semi-private exchanges. Many MsgGroup members are also members of Header-People, but many are not. Those who are not would like to avoid distraction by the side discussions. Best Regards - Stef 30-Apr-79 17:30:02-PDT,875;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 30-Apr-79 0331-PDT Date: 30 Apr 1979 0324-PDT Sender: SDSAN-DMS at SRI-KA Subject: MSGGROUP#1158 Re: A review of MsgGroup and its purposes... From: SDSAN-DMS at SRI-KA To: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Cc: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[SRI-KA]30-Apr-79 03:24:38.SDSAN-DMS> In-Reply-To: <[USC-ISI]30-Apr-79 00:47:04.STEFFERUD> Stef, you seem to have the pulse of one member correctly. I agree with everything you say. Lately, MSGGROUP has been 50% attack, 40 % defense and 10 % constructive. I would hope for a return to the previous style in which contributors seemed to have considered what they were saying a long time before they released it. The recent offerings from RA3Y are the only contributions left in that category. Keep up the good work, Stef. Someone is needed to force a return to the original concepts. Tom 30-Apr-79 17:30:03-PDT,900;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 30-Apr-79 0917-PDT Date: 30 April 1979 1154-EDT (Monday) From: David.Lamb at CMU-10A Subject: MSGGROUP#1159 Re: Marketing Electronic Mail Sender: RdMail at CMU-10A To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <30Apr79 115458 RD00@CMU-10A> In-Reply-To: <29Apr79 231639 BR10@CMU-10A> To a certain extent I agree with what Brian said. The electronic mail market these days is much like that of financial calculators a few years ago. Initially, financial calculators sold poorly because the intended market didn't realize they "needed" such things. Eventually they started to catch on when businessmen who had them began to get the upper hand in negotiations by being able to instantly calculate present values and such. The situation with electronic mail is even worse, in that even we, the designers, aren't fully aware of the potentials. David Alex Lamb 30-Apr-79 17:30:03-PDT,1166;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 30-Apr-79 0948-PDT Date: 30 Apr 1979 0902-PDT Sender: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1160 Re: A review of MsgGroup and its purposes... From: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI To: SDSAN-DMS at SRI-KA Cc: MsgGroup at MIT-ML Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]30-Apr-79 09:02:06.STEFFERUD> In-Reply-To: <[SRI-KA]30-Apr-79 03:24:38.SDSAN-DMS> Thanks Tom - Your support in this is ery much apprecited. Best - Stef - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 601 chars/ 4 Subject: Purpose of MsgGroup Date: 30 Apr 1979 0638-PDT From: TASKER at USC-ISI - - Sender: TASKER at USC-ISI To: Stefferud Cc: Goodwin Stef, I share your interpretation of the purpose of MsgGroup. Although it HAS been somewhat useful to see how far removed many of our members are from the reality of the world that most of the future (and current) users of message services live in, one tenth of the messages (the right tenth) would have sufficed. -Pete Tasker MITRE *** TRAILER *** Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]30-Apr-79 06:38:15.TASKER> Mail-from: USC-ISI rcvd at 30-Apr-79 0643-PDT *** END Subject: Purpose of MsgGroup/# 4 30-Apr-79 17:30:04-PDT,719;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 30-Apr-79 1638-PDT Date: 30 APR 1979 1625-PDT From: MACKENZIE at USC-ECL Subject: MSGGROUP#1161 Re: Let's raise the level of MsgGroup dis... To: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI, MsgGroup at MIT-ML cc: MACKENZIE In response to the message sent 30 Apr 1979 0047-PDT from STEFFERUD@USC-ISI May I add a short note showing my appreciation and support of your comments about the nature and purpose of Msggroup. I derive great benefit from the works of Ra3y, the gentleman who answered my message about punctuation (who's name I've forgotten), and such. I do not have time for discussions about personalities or dots. I second the motion. Keep up the good work Steff! Kevin ------- 30-Apr-79 21:07:11-PDT,2533;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 30-Apr-79 1948-PDT Date: 30 Apr 1979 1921-PDT Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: MSGGROUP#1162 Whose Needs and Wants? From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]Mailing.List;193: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]30-Apr-79 19:21:51.PANKO> When we say that we need to design our systems for people's needs and wants, it is important to realize that there are at least two major sets of clients. One set of clients consists of individual end users. This is the client group virtually all of the MSGGROUP discussion has focused on since 1975. Another client, however, is also critically important: the organizations in which computer mail will live. Organizations have complex, subtle, and above all STRUCTURED communication needs. We are paying entirely too much attention to individual users in MSGGROUP, at least in the sense that we have totally ignored organizational communication needs. Here are a few points suggesting that our focus is incorrect: Most messages flowing through the postal service are not person-to-person messages, but rather business forms. Business forms arise when there is structured communication; most business processes are very heavily structured. Do you spend most of your communication time filing out forms? I think not; so you are actually a small part of the office establishment. Of the nearly one billion pages of paper communication flowing in the United States economy each year, about two-thirds (roughly) are business forms. Many times even narrative messages are part of a structured communication flow, for example, when there is a project underway. Unless our message systems can solve the needs of organizational clients for structured communication, we are likely to be in trouble. If you want an example of structured communication in computer mail, look at Hewlett-Packard. That company sends about 23 million messages via computer mail each year. Only 15% are narrative messages. What are the rest? If you don't know, are you really in a position to discuss what the "next generation" of computer mail will looks like? I, like everyone else in MSGGROUP, tend to design the kinds of systems I personally want. The important thing for us all to remember is that we are simply not typical office workers, and the office workers who send the most messages are not at all like us. Can we afford to go on in ignorance of their needs and of the organization's needs for structured communications? Ra3y 1-May-79 18:55:25-PDT,2567;000000000001 Date: 1 May 1979 1820-PDT Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: MSGGROUP#1163 Market Segmentation From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]MAILING.LIST;197: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL] 1-May-79 18:20:03.PANKO> Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 1-May-79 1850-PDT I have said that one way to think about system design is to consider some general marketing principles. The most important of these general principles is market segmentation. The idea of market segmentation is simple. Obviously, everyone would like to have a custom-designed product. But in practice this is impossible. So we try to divide the market into (reasonably) homogeneous segments and supply a line of products--one to each segment. In MSGGROUP, it seems, we have tried to design systems that are flexible enough to serve everyone. But as we look over the ARPANET, we really find that many systems are available which vary widely in their capabilities. Perhaps in the future there will be a "line" of offerings which may or may not be highly incompatible. The question, then, is how to segment the market. One basis for segmentation is usually heaviness of use. Generally, something like 20% of your customers will supply 80% of your revenues. For beer, for instance, 17% of the people provide 87% of the revenues. for cereals, 48% supply 87% of the revenues. For colas, 39% of the people supply 90% of the revenues. A similar thing happens in the case of computer mail. In the Darcom survey I did last year, only 27 of the 86 managers surveyed --about one in three--used the system themselves. The rest relied almost entirely on support staff for the mechanics of the process. And when you look at managers who do use the system directly, only about 56% maintain online files, and only 74% edit their messages. Given what we know about other products, this skewness of use is not surprising to a marketer. Unfortunately, many designers are alarmed at such figures. While it is probably true that our systems could be better, we must realize that many people want very little from computer mail beyond rapid message delivery. Let's do a test to see how well we understand nonusers. In a day or two, I will cite the main differences between direct users among DARCOM managers and indirect users among that group. What do you think differentiates between the two groups? How about age? Current reaction toward computer mail? Training in computer science? Typing skills? Message traffic? I think you will be surprised. Aloha, Ra3y 2-May-79 01:26:02-PDT,3117;000000000001 Mail-from: SU-AI rcvd at 2-May-79 0027-PDT Date: 1 May 1979 2308-PDT From: Geoff Goodfellow Subject: MSGGROUP#1164 "Paperless Office" becoming information factory. To: "@MSGGRP.197[G,GFF]" at SU-AI a015 2247 01 May 79 PM-Paperless Office, Bjt,490 Laserphoto WX3 By HARRY F. ROSENTHAL Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - In Larry Stockett's office, no secretary takes a letter. No mistake-ridden letters jam wastebaskets. No filing cabinets line the walls. There are no typewriters, no file folders. There is no clutter. If Stockett wants to go over correspondence on the way home, he opens his briefcase, turns on the 6-ounce microfiche projector and reads from a screen built into the briefcase lid. The 32-year-old Stockett is president of Micronet, Inc., a management consulting firm that specializes in automation. His message is that the office can be made just as efficient as the production line. ''We wanted to be the first to practice what we preach,'' Stockett says. That gave birth to today's official opening of what Stockett proclaims is the office of the future. Not surprisingly, it's called The Paperless Office and it's located amidst the plush boutiques in the shopping arcade of the Watergate complex. But it is a working office, not a trade show or a sales room. ''We don't sell any equipment or software. We are a user like any other user,'' says Stockett. Equipment in Micronet's office includes a Thought Tank System that takes dictation from any phone in the office, word processors, TV display screens at each desk, printers for letters that go out of the office, a computer and three minicomputers. Instead of the tapping of typewriters in the usual office, here there is only the insistent hum of machinery. ''If a firm goes to the manufacturer, they get a sales pitch,'' Stockett said. ''From us they hear what works and what doesn't work.'' The firm also also conducts workshops for executive officers of companies and for planning teams, charging $225 per student per day. Stockett expects 5,000 to attend the workshops in the next 12 months. An accounting firm sent managers from around the world. The government is a big client. All of the equipment in use in the office is of standard manufacture and readily available. Lockett's briefcase, complete with microfiche projector and screen, sells for $139. Microfiche are 4-by-6 inch sheets of film capable of holding the equivalent of 270 pages of paper computer printout. ''Every bit of information I create in my company I can carry with me in my briefcase,'' Stockett said. Stockett said that although more than 50 percent of the gross national product is associated with information systems, there has not been any increase in office productivity in the last 10 years. ''The office is rapidly becoming an information factory,'' he said. ''We train management to install into the factory all the tools that are available.'' ap-ny-05-02 0156EDT *************** 2-May-79 16:29:26-PDT,999;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 2-May-79 0916-PDT Date: 2 May 1979 0820-PDT From: Bair at SRI-KL (James Bair) Subject: MSGGROUP#1165 More on Office Automation Stats To: PANKO at SRI-KL, BAIR at SRI-KL cc: STEF at SRI-KA Redistributed-To: msggroup at MIT-ML Redistributed-By: STEFFERUD at USC-ISI (connected to MSGGROUP) Redistributed-Date: 2 May 1979 Ray, I find your comment and statistic most interesting. You have raised a major point about office communication that should expand the design perspective. Can you give a source for the amount of forms communication in offices? I'd like to learn more about it. 6% of the ave. managers time is spent on the phone, and about 69% spent in face-to-face meetings. About 50 % of professionals time is spent in this unstructured communication. Since I see msg facilities substituting for some meetings and phone calls, at least that portion will not be form oriented. (Source: Mintzberg, Panko, and SRI studies). Jim Bair 2-May-79 16:29:26-PDT,2462;000000000001 Mail-from: SU-AI rcvd at 2-May-79 1206-PDT Date: 2 May 1979 1029-PDT From: Geoff Goodfellow Subject: MSGGROUP#1166 "Privacy" To: "@MSGGRP.197[G,GFF]" at SU-AI a047 0237 02 May 79 PM-Privacy,360 By CHRIS CONNELL Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A growing majority of Americans are concerned about threats to their personal privacy, pointing a particularly accusing finger at computers. One-quarter of those surveyed by a Louis Harris poll said employers ask for too much personal information. Police were identified the most times as invading personal privacy. The poll, commissioned by Sentry Insurance and released today, surveyed 2,131 persons late last year and found 64 percent ''very'' or ''somewhat'' concerned about threats to personal privacy - up from 47 percent in a January 1978 poll. Fifty-four percent felt the use of computers poses an actual threat to personal privacy in the United States. Asked who was to blame for invading their privacy, more people identified police (19 percent) than employers (16 percent), credit bureaus (8 percent), telephone solicitors, door-to-door salesmen and market research firms (7 percent), and government, insurance companies and gossip (6 percent). Of law enforcement officials polled, 55 percent - nearly triple the national average - said they believed their privacy had been invaded. More than 70 percent of doctors, members of Congress, their aides, and federal regulators were ''very'' or ''somewhat concerned'' about threats to privacy. Credit bureaus and finance companies were the most criticized institutions for asking too much about personal information and not keeping it confidential. ''The credit industry has a major communication problem with the public,'' the Harris report said. Thirty-one percent polled felt the news media asked for a great deal of personal information. This was pronounced among executives and officials, particularly bank executives, and the police (78 percent). The public seemed more concerned about the Internal Revenue Service asking for too much personal information (38 percent) than they did about the FBI (33 percent) or CIA (34 percent). About one-fourth of the police and federal regulators and nearly two-fifths of the lawmakers and aides questioned felt their phones had been tapped. ap-ny-05-02 0538EDT *************** 3-May-79 01:26:56-PDT,1562;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 2-May-79 1832-PDT Date: 2 May 1979 1755-PDT From: Panko at SRI-KL (Ra3y Panko) Subject: MSGGROUP#1167 Bair's Message on Professional Time To: [ISI]MAILING.LIST;197: First, I don't care what portion of the professional's day is spent on unstructured communication (I think it is 25% for professionals, 55% for managers). First, I don't care because the world does not consist of just professionals, managers, and secretaries. Second, I don't care because current trends in system designs will almost certainly do right by them. Third, a good deal of "unstructured" communication is really structured. Maybe business forms are not used per se, but a lot of work is done through regular reports, which are forms in the broad sense. In addition and more importantly, structure takes place at the level of working relationships, and communication flows must often mirror this structure. The first computer mail type system that has dealt aggressively with structured communications, in my understanding, is the Wharton system used to structure all the communication needed to put out a professionzl journal. Nary a form in the lot of messages flowing through the system. To balance things, I do believe that the real impact of computer mail will be in making communication more effective, not in making what we do easier to do, but I am growing weary of the narcissistic tendencies of managers and professionals to seek systems geared toward themselves or others of their ilk. ------- 4-May-79 09:54:10-PDT,1030;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 3-May-79 1547-PDT Date: 3 May 79 (05/03/79 18:31:52) From: KENS@MIT-MC Subject: MSGGROUP#1168 "PAPERLESS OFFICE" DEBUT To: MSGROUP at MIT-ML I JUST ATTENDED THE "PAPERLESS OFFICE'S" DEBUT AT THE WATERGATE LAST NIGHT WAS AN "ELEGANT EVENING...NO PAPER PLATES". THE MAJOR EMPHASIS IN THE OFFICE IS ON MICROFORMS WHICH WILL DEFINITELY TURN SOME PEOPLE OFF, AND THEY DO ALLOW AS HOW THEY WILL MAKE PAPER COPIES OF THINGS TO SEND TO THOSE POOR SOULS WHO DONT KNOW ANY BETTER. AS A OFFICE OF THE FUTURE CONCEPT I DONT HAVE TOO MUCH OF A PROBLEM WITH THE P.O., BUT AS A WAY OF EVOLVING FROM WHAT MOST OFFICES ARE DOING NOW IT IS TOO MUCH OF A QUANTUM LEAP. YOU JUST CANT TELL PEOPLE THAT STARTING TOMMOROW THEY WILL NO LONGER NEED PAPER, THEY KNOW BETTER. LARRY STOCKETT HAS A GOOD IDEA IN CREATING A TESTBED FOR OFFICE AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGY ESPECIALLY IF HE EXPANDS ON IT TO INCLUDE OTHER CAPABILITIES, BUT HE MAY FIND ITS DANGEROUS TO LIVE IN GLASS OFFICES. 4-May-79 14:13:46-PDT,4486;000000000001 Mail-from: SU-AI rcvd at 4-May-79 1211-PDT Date: 4 May 1979 0940-PDT From: Geoff Goodfellow Subject: MSGGROUP#1169 (N.Y.Times) "Privacy" To: "@MSGGRP.197[G,GFF]" at SU-AI n139 2115 03 May 79 BC-PRIVACY (UNDATED) By DAVID BURNHAM c. 1979 N.Y. Times News Service Thousands of Americans polled in a recent national survey expressed concern that government agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service and private organizations such as finance companies were violating their privacy. Three out of four of those polled said they believed that a guarantee of privacy should be added to the Bill of Rights. The survey, conducted last December for Sentry Insurance by Louis Harris Associates Inc., the polling organization, also found that national concern about privacy had substantially increased in the last year. A wide variety of respondents were surveyed in several different polls. One involved 2,100 people representing a cross-section of the general public. In several smaller polls, the respondents included credit card executives, bank officials, computer executives, state insurance commissioners, regulatory officials and members of Congress. Over 200 questions were asked. All ere asked whether they were ''very concerned,'' ''somewhat concerned,'' ''only a little concerned'' or ''not at all concerned'' about threats to their privacy. Two-thirds replied that they were ''very'' or ''somewhat'' concerned, as against 47 percent in a similar poll 11 months earlier. At a news conference in New York Thursday to discuss the survey, Harris said the findings showed that the Carter administration ''is lingering behind the country in suggesting remedies to the widespread public belief that their privacy was being abused by government and private institution'' Harris and Alan Westin, who served as a consultant to the $600,000 study, said the public concern about privacy appeared to have been gradually increasing in recent years for a variety of reasons but that the abuses of the Watergate era had been important. Westin, a professor of public law and government at Columbia University, said, ''Richard Nixon has to be regarded as the patron saint of privacy.'' The December survey found the following: - One in five respondents said they had been the victims of what they regarded as an improper invasion of their privacy. - One out of three polled said the United States had already reached a point or was ''very close'' to the time described by George Orwell in his book ''1984'' when the government ''knew almost everything that everyone was doing.'' - Half those questioned said that within 10 years the American people ''will have lost much of our ability to keep important aspects of our lives private from the government.'' Forty-five percent of the public respondents felt that finance companies and credit bureaus asked for too much personal information. This compared with 38 percent who felt the same way about insurance companies and the Internal Revenue Service, 33 percent who aimed their concern at the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and 31 percent who cited newspapers, magazines and television. By contrast, 78 percent of the bankers, 68 percent of state insurance commissions and 60 percent of doctors and members of Congress polled said they believed that news organizations collected too much information. Almost three out of four of the respondents said they strongly or somewhat favored the government's having the right ''to prosecute anyone who publishes secret materials.'' At the same time, two out of three said the privacy of journalists notes should be protected. More than 60 percent of the sample said they thought that the police should not be able to get the bank records, tap the telephones and read the mail of an organization that might engage in an illegal act in the future without obtaining a court order. Slightly fewer than half said the police should be required to get a court order if they wanted to put an undercover agent into the organization. More than half those polled, 54 percent, said they considered the present use of computers in the United States ''an actual threat to personal privacy.'' In a similar poll in 1976, only 37 percent of the public shared this view. ny-0504 0013edt *************** 4-May-79 21:11:43-PDT,2172;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 4-May-79 1922-PDT Date: 4 May 1979 1818-PDT Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: MSGGROUP#1170 Nobody wants computer mail! From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]MAILING.LIST;197: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL] 4-May-79 18:18:01.PANKO> A few years ago, the president of Stanly (the power tool company) announced to his stockholders in an open meeting, "We have a very serious problem; nobody in the world wants to buy one of our drills!" His statement jolted the stockholders, who had just heard that sales of drills were very brisk and were carrying the comp|any, so they asked the president to explain. "First," he said, "Nobody wants to buy drills. What they really want is Holes! At present, a drill is the only way to make a hole in most cases, but new technologies on the horizon will eventually obsolete the drill." "Second, nobody wants to buy one of our drills because our drills cost money. In other words, people tolerate us simply because they need us. We are a burden to them. If they can do anything to lighten that burden, they will certainly do so, and they will do so very very rapidly." Computer mail is like drills, I think. Organizations won't really buy computer mail because it is jazzy or fun to use. They will buy them to further company objectives. While I'm sure we will make many early sales on a gee whiz basis, competitive pressures will soon drive out the computer mail systems that cannot meet company objectives. The problem, of course, is that we really don't know what benefits companies are seeking from computer mail. Of course I have some pretty firm opinions, as do we all, but let's recognize that these opinions are based upon pretty ideosyncratic experiences. Perhaps the most dangerous thing about computer mail, however, is that there are a few people who really do want drills rather than holes, or in this case are into computer mail simply because they dig it and and get turned on by it. They focus on the technology itself. But while these may be "our kind of people," they are not the organization's kind of people in many instances. Ra3y 7-May-79 20:06:34-PDT,2147;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 7-May-79 1940-PDT Date: 7 May 1979 1832-PDT Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: MSGGROUP#1171 Direct vs Indirect Users From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]MAILING.LIST;198: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL] 7-May-79 18:32:34.PANKO> I asked you to guess at the differences between direct and indirect users among managers in my DARCOM survey of last year. Time's up. Here are the numbers. For each category, There will be three numbers. The first is for direct users. The second is for indirect users. The third is the alpha significance level. If the alpha significance level is LARGER than .05, the difference between direct and indirect managers is NOT significant at the ,05 confidence level. If alpha is SMALLER than .05, the difference IS statistically significance. There were 27 direct users and 59 indirect users. There are several statistical niceties I should tell you about, but they are pretty technical, so I'll pass. 2.1 1.7 .01 Number of years receiving messages 23 13 .00 Number of messages received per week 48 48 .38 Age in years (mean) 47 35 .03 Annual travel days 22% 56% .00 Is a poor typist 96% 88% .01 Used computers before 59% 48% .19 Trained in math, science, or engineering 32% 20% .16 Trained in computer science 33% 27% .05 Would like to increase total communication strongly 37% 27% .08 Would like to incr. computer mail use strongly 59% 40% .02 Current reaction is strongly positive There is actually more than this, but these figures present a picture. The indirect user does not really dislike computer mail. While differences are consistently significant from a statistical point of view, they are hardly overwhelming. Certain stereotypic differences, for example, the sacred cow "age" effect do not appear at all. I think that it will be quite difficult to differentiate direct and indirect users. I think causative factors will be complex and subtle. Again, nonusers do not DISLIKE computer mail, nor do they have little traffic. It appears, rather, that they just want someone else to do the terminal work. 17-May-79 21:49:40-PDT,994;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 14-May-79 1458-PDT Date: 14 MAY 1979 1437-PDT Sender: HSMITH at USC-ECL Subject: Msggroup#1172 Message Systems From: HSMITH at USC-ECL To: msggroup at MIT-MC Cc: hsmith Message-ID: <[USC-ECL]14-MAY-79 14:37:01.HSMITH> I am writing this in the hope that I can get into contact with some member of the above group. Briefly, I am a visiting professor from the UK specialising in research in the Man-Machine Interaction area. At the moment I am involved in looking at message systems in the Office environment withsome members of the Isd group at RAND. We are investigating whether the concepts of exemplary programming can be utilised to construct a message information processing environment. This work is at a very early stage and we would appreciate general information on what is happening in message system research. If you could suggest names, reports or are intersted in further contact I would be grateful for a reply. Hugh Smith 17-May-79 21:49:40-PDT,1266;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 16-May-79 1845-PDT Date: 16 May 1979 1758-PDT Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: Msggroup#1173 More on Drills and Holes From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]MAILING.LIST;198: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]16-May-79 17:58:55.PANKO> In my comment, "nobody wants computer mail," I tried to suggest that people want solutions to their problems, and that office automation tools will only win if they serve those needs better than competing systems and noncomputer products. Remember, I said, tools cost money; you are a necessary evil, except to a few hackers who find tools more important than solutions. Since then, I have gotten several comments indicating that I wasn't very clear. They all said, "But once we have integrated systems, people will love us." I reiterate, integrated systems are only tools. No matter how cleverly you design them, they are only good to the extent they fulfill pressing human and organizational needs. Integration is nice and is even necessary, but it's not MAGIC. Integrated systems will still rise and fall on the basis of how well their designers understand working stiff's real functional needs, and I don't mean system-centered needs such as "text-editing,": and "messaging." 17-May-79 21:49:40-PDT,1043;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 16-May-79 1957-PDT Date: 16 May 79 21:54-EDT (Wed) From: Dcrocker at UDEE Reply-to: Dcrocker at Rand-Unix Subject: Msggroup#1174 Re: More on Drills and Holes To: PANKO at Sri-Kl cc: MsgGroup at Mit-Ml Message-ID: <79135.78843.4930 @ UDEE> In-Reply-To: Your message of 16 May <[SRI-KL]16-May-79 17:58:55.PANKO> There is a very old story which (freely reconstructed) tells of someone once rushing up to George Bernard Shaw (I believe) and breathlessly telling him of an invention by some fellow over in America, named Alexander Graham Bell, which allowed Bell to talk with people in other rooms, by sending sounds through wire. The fellow then asked Shaw if he didn't think that this was the most marvelous device, to which Shaw responded that it depended upon what Bell said. Truly only a tool. The medium is the mechanism. The fact that we delude ourselves into thinking that it is the message is only a very strong indication that our training has been impressively deficient. Dave. 17-May-79 21:49:40-PDT,2534;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 17-May-79 1612-PDT Date: 17 May 1979 1546-PDT From: PICKENS at SRI-KL Subject: Msggroup#1175 The medium is *not* the mechanism To: msggroup at MIT-ML Cc: pickens at SRI-KL Perhaps a significant reason why environments have not adopted electronic tools is because of a growing awareness of the revolutionary impact of such tools. E-Mail, for example, levitates toward horizontal rather than vertical communications. Such impacts are content *independent*. Before continuing the debate on whether or not the medium is the message, one would be well advised to reread several classics on this subject, mostly on the subject of TV, which contain several themes that transfer naturally into the discussion of message systems impact. They are "The Medium is the Message", "The Show and Tell Machine", "The Plug In Drug", and "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television". The message of electronic mechanisms is complex, and sometimes blurred, but I read it in the following ways: 1. Geographic independence is achieved (++) 2. Span of Control is increased (++) 3. Reaction time is reduced (+-) 4. Relationships are depersonalized (-) 5. A state of narcosis sets in (-) The list is much longer than this. Generally, paper based systems at least reduce the inter-person bandwidth, thus reducing *noise* and allowing one to *think* things out. Electronic based systems tend to push toward *reaction* rather than *action*, reduce the ability to *think* and *plan*, and *assault* the senses with a barrage of excessive information. Now I support the application of electronic technology to aid the tremendous information processing demands of today, but I recommend doing so in a wise, carefully planned, fashion. Mechanisms must be built in to guard against the negative tendancies of the electronic culture. Stated in another way, systems must be designed to minimize the tendancy toward revolution of the office environment. Stated another way, integration in the types of systems we are designing means more than "within-tools"; it means "within-environments". And, as the installation of the msggroup message-repeater fostered an *unprecedented* level of the "mindless-flaming" behavior, let us recognize that the medium *does* indeed have a message. And let us be careful to hear that message, loud-and-clear, and learn how to design- in safeguards to protect our individuality and our ability to think and act. J. Pickens ------- 18-May-79 19:53:27-PDT,1340;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 18-May-79 0356-PDT Date: 18 May 1979 01:29 edt From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: MSGGROUP#1176 Re: The medium is *not* the mechanism To: PICKENS at SRI-KL cc: msggroup at MIT-ML, pickens at SRI-KL In-Reply-To: Msg of 05/17/79 18:46 from PICKENS ... ium are significant, one must take a balanced view. I expect that there will be many references to "mindless flaming" in future comments. Observe, however, that the amount of such flaming dramatically decreased after Stef's statement of the purpose of the msggroup. It has not, of course, left us completely and will reassert itself from time to time. I feel that the "medium is the message" statements are not meant to be complete explanations, but attempts to get beyond surface impressions. The current office ecology will, inevitably, be affected by electronic systems. The question is not only one of making these systems unobtrusive. People adapt the systems they have to their needs (within limits, of course, | if the systems cannot be bent they fail).. To get to a point -- we should attempt to observe how the conventions of an office reassert themselves in the presence of new technologies. We must also be aware that most effects we see now are transients which obscure the long term effects. 18-May-79 19:53:28-PDT,797;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 18-May-79 0356-PDT Date: 18 May 1979 0047-PDT From: Mark Crispin Subject: MSGGROUP#1177 resent MsgGroup messages To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML I am uncomfortable with the recent messages coming over MsgGroup. They are presented in a series, as "fact" not "opinion." I feel like I am being lectured to, and I don't like the fact that I cannot disagree with the statements in the messages without implicitly calling their sending an ignorant, or a liar (or leaving myself open to either label). I wonder if anybody else feels this way. Along with frowning on flaming, how about also frowning on this manner of presenting opinions? I would rather see opinions labelled and presented as opinions, not as a lecture handout. ------- 18-May-79 19:53:28-PDT,1198;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 18-May-79 1012-PDT Sender: Mike at Rand-Unix Date: 18 May 1979 at 0958-PDT To: Admin.MRC at Su-Score cc: MsgGroup at Mit-Ml From: Michael Wahrman Subject: MSGGROUP#1178 Re: resent MsgGroup messages In-reply-to: Your message of 18 May 1979 0047-PDT. Reply-to: Mike at Rand-Unix What you are noticing is not the 'lecture' format of the recent messages, but instead their higher academic content. The better quality of these messages is a result of an increased level of effort in the preparation of material and of thoughts. This is to be preferred over the hasty and usually uninformed reactions which were the norm for Msggroup until recently. I believe I have read more of interest in the last month of Msggroup than in the 6 months previously, although the volume (or perhaps, because the volume) of messages is considerably reduced. Whatever the format, if you disagree with the content of one of these missives, then by all means say so! But please try and keep your objections on the same level as the original message. If your only response is to call someone a liar, then it is better for you to say nothing. 18-May-79 19:53:28-PDT,1260;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 18-May-79 1443-PDT Date: 18 May 1979 1409-PDT From: Mark Crispin Subject: MSGGROUP#1179 Resent (sic) MsgGroup messages To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML The "resent" was a typo - it should have been "recent" - but the idea is amusing (as was another recent typo...). I'm not really sure we are talking about a higher academic content or flaming in the form of lectures. The recent group mail hasn't been in a form to attempt to stimulate discussion - the tone is that of an instructor trying to prod unusually slow pupils - and Mike's message doesn't do much to clear the intellectual elitist atmosphere. He certainly misunderstood my point about lies vs. ignorance, which was that one cannot dispute something presented as fact (not opinion) without implicitly calling the person presenting the fact a liar or an ignorant. I also feel that I am reading flaming, couched in "academic" language. I am not sure what the point of these recent messages are; it's like reading the text of a tedious research report without seeing the abstract, purpose of the report, or the conclusions. I know from some messages I received privately that I'm not the only person who feels this way. ------- 25-May-79 21:21:29-PDT,961;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 21-May-79 1841-PDT Date: 21 May 1979 1755-PDT Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: Msggroup#1180 Media as Messages From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]MAILING.LIST;198: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]21-May-79 17:55:21.PANKO> I certainly agree that computer mail will make many new things possible. My main concern is that it may, needlessly, make certain important things impossible at the same time. When we first started building computer-based accounting systems, for example, several of the first attempts did not begin by studying what accountants really did. As a result, several of these systems were poorly suited to existing work styles even when these work styles were rational and efficient. Communication constitutes about half of all labor hours in the firm, as far as I can tell. If we are going to automate it, we must understand BOTH the way it is today and the changes computer mail may generate. 25-May-79 21:21:29-PDT,708;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 22-May-79 1245-PDT Date: 21 May 1979 1635-PDT From: Feinler at SRI-KL (Jake Feinler) Subject: Msggroup#1181 Re: Message Systems To: HSMITH at USC-ECL, msggroup at MIT-MC cc: FEINLER In response to the message sent 14 MAY 1979 1437-PDT from HSMITH@USC-ECL Dear Hugh, How long will you be on the West Coast? I am traveling myself now and will not be back in the office until May 29. Will you be in the San Francisco area? If so, perhaps we can get together. (SRI is located 30 mils south of San Francisco in Menlo Park). We have done a biblio which I will try to unearth when I get back. To what mailbox should I deliver it? Jake Feinler ------- 25-May-79 21:21:30-PDT,801;000000000001 Mail-from: BBN-TENEX rcvd at 22-May-79 1410-PDT Date: 22 May 1979 1623-EDT Sender: POOL at BBN-TENEX Subject: Msggroup#1182 Indefinite Delay of DOE Meeting From: POOL at BBN-TENEX To: [ISI]MAILING.LIST;199:, To: DOE-AMS-LABS: Cc: Pool Message-ID: <[BBN-TENEX]22-May-79 16:23:05.POOL> In a message several weeks ago, I announced the possiblity of a meeting on computer-aided communications and applications to problems within the Department of Energy. Due to unforeseen problems with Congressional approval of the President's Budget for DOE's research activities (in particular, research in computer science), I must indefinitely postpone the planning for this meeting. I would like to thank the individuals who expressed an interest. 25-May-79 21:21:30-PDT,917;000000000001 Mail-from: SRI-KL rcvd at 23-May-79 1944-PDT Date: 23 May 1979 1847-PDT Sender: PANKO at SRI-KL Subject: Msggroup#1183 Standards Issues From: PANKO at SRI-KL To: [ISI]MAILING.LIST;199: Message-ID: <[SRI-KL]23-May-79 18:47:37.PANKO> I'd like to ask for your help., I'm compiling a list of standards issues for computer mail, and I'd be grateful for your input. Here are a few questions you might be able to help me on. First, what aspects of computer mail would you like to see standardized? Second, what aspects of computer mail would you not like to see standardized? Third, what standards seem most necessary if computer mail is to grow in a healthy way in its early years? What standards might get it off the ground quickly? Fourth, what do you see as the biggest strengths and weaknesses of current ARPANET standards for computer mail Mahalo (Thank you) Ra3y Panko 25-May-79 21:21:30-PDT,1404;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-May-79 0152-PDT Date: 24 May 1979 04:43 edt From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: Msggroup#1184 Re: Standards Issues To: PANKO at SRI-KL cc: msggroup at MIT-ML In-Reply-To: Msg of 05/23/79 21:47 from PANKO When asking about standards for mail systems, one must decide on the boundaries for what one means by a mail system. On the Arpanet we were fortunate to have FTP as a basis for actually sending the letters. I feel that such a standard is the most important one for what I call worldnet -- the interconneciton of the various public networks. FTP actually is more than just a means of sending the letter, it also absorbs the recipient field from the header that tells to whom a specific copy of a letter is directed. Given a means of sending the letter, then the addressing structure should be standardized to allow for more universal communication. Beyond that headerless mail can be handled successful so we come back to header standardization for the next level of protocol. In answer to questions three and four, I'd expect systems imitating RFC 733 to get off the ground quickly since the virute of the Arpanet mail is that it exists and is universal within a relatively heterogenous community. Getting back to #2, the major weakness of Arpanet mail is the lack of security. (And, on many systems, privacy). 25-May-79 21:21:30-PDT,810;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-May-79 0221-PDT Date: 24 May 1979 0211-PDT From: Mark Crispin Subject: Msggroup#1185 Re: Re: Standards Issues To: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-MULTICS, PANKO at SRI-KL Cc: msggroup at MIT-ML In-reply-to: Your message of 24-May-79 0443-PDT The first standard I would like to see implemented and enforced is a requirement that all lines in a message be less than 80 (preferably less than 70, for the benefit of truly inferior terminals) characters per line. PS - I still think it was a bad idea for MAIL to be part of FTP. It assumes that all mail servers are FTP servers and vice versa, and is the basis of infinite header formats. If the header were actually part of a mail protocol it would have been standardized long ago. ------- 25-May-79 21:21:30-PDT,419;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 24-May-79 0235-PDT Date: 24 May 1979 05:20 edt From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: Msggroup#1186 Re: Re: Standards Issues To: Mark Crispin cc: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics, PANKO at SRI-KL, msggroup at MIT-ML In-Reply-To: Msg of 05/24/79 05:11 from Mark Crispin Damn mail system forgot to wrap the line sproperly -- sorry. 28-May-79 00:24:00-PDT,4490;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 26-May-79 1519-PDT Date: 26 May 1979 1509-PDT From: PBARAN at USC-ISI Subject: MSGGROUP#1187 PAN - a tiny electronic mail system To: msggroup at MIT-MC cc: gage at ISIE Up until March of '79 The Personal Computer NETwork (PCNET) Committee has taken a 'bottom up' approach to personal computer telecommunication; to provide general and powerful mechanisms for reliable data transmission, and when these were thoroughly debugged to supply the electronic mail and file transfer systems based on them. We've changed our strategy. We're now going to take a 'top down' approach, providing an immediately usable electronic mail system. The sophisticated bells and whistles can be added later. We intend to continue work on the full PCNET protocol, with all its power and complexity. However, priority will be given to immediately usable systems. Our new electronic mail system is called PAN; it has been written by Doug Gage in collaboration with The PCNET Committee. PAN is presently implemented for an 8K PET and TNW modem; we plan to write compatible PAN software for the Apple, the TRS-80, etc. Any PAN should be able to communicate with any other PAN, regardless of the hardware used. PAN is designed to use the dial telephone system and is fully distributed; no equipment external to the personal computers and modems is required. To make complete use of PAN, the modem used must be under full software control. The software must be able to control the phone line status (on or off hook), dial numbers, select originate or answer mode, and detect incoming ring signals. It is desirable that the modem be hardwired to the phone line; the modem should be FCC certified for direct connection or be used with a Data Access Arrangement. Acoustically coupled modems could be used, but dialing, answering the phone on incoming calls, changing between answer and originate calls, etc., would all have to be done manually. Present PAN software would have to be modified to support manual operation. PAN User Interface PAN is similar to Community Bulletin Board Systems (CBBS) in general functioning and command structure; see the Nov '78 Byte for a description of CBBS. It is different in that PAN is a distributed system; there is no single phone number and set of equipment through which all messages must pass. Upon first starting up PAN, the user is prompted for the time and asked to rewind the message logging tape. The PAN electronic mail system accepts single character commands from the user. They are as follows: E Enter a message The user enters the message text with the screen editor. The first ten (seven if a local call) digits encountered by PAN will be interpreted by PAN as the phone number of the recipient PAN. Entry is terminated with the '_' character and aborted with the RVS key. When entry is terminated PAN assigns a message number and the user is given a menu of message modes: N No mode assigned; I Immediate. Transmit this message now; D Deferred. Transmit the message later; user is prompted for the time of transmission. M Assign a new mode to the message whose number is given by the user. As above, the user selects from the mode menu. Two modes are assigned by PAN: S for messages successfully sent, and R for messages received. K Kill the message whose number is given. The user is asked for confirmation, and the message is deleted from the buffer. The space freed is available for new messages. R Retrieve the message whose number is given and display it on the screen. S Summarize the messages in the buffer. Display on the screen the number, mode, size and first 26 characters of each message in the buffer. ? List the PAN commands. U Unload and terminate PAN. Write an EOF to the message logging tape and exit to BASIC. Note that the PCNET version of PAN has commands which do not conflict with and in many cases are the same as those of the CBBS. PAN is designed for unattended operation; complete automatic dialling and call management are provided. PAN has undergone about 8 weeks of operational tests. The PCNET Committee plans to start distribution of PAN software as soon as we arrange for cassette tape duplication, write a user's manual and arrange distribution channels. Dave Caulkins ------- 28-May-79 00:24:01-PDT,2146;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 27-May-79 2249-PDT Date: 27 May 1979 2242-PDT From: Mark Crispin Subject: MSGGROUP#1188 Dialnet status To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML I guess it's time to mention something about what Dialnet has been up to recently, considering the recent PCNET message. For some time now SAIL has had a Dialnet implementation running waiting for somebody else to talk to. SAIL has three ports; a VADIC 3405 1200/1200 baud full-duplex modem with autodialer, and two ports looped-back on each other for debugging. SAIL also has a Dialnet file transfer user and server implementation using the full Dialnet FTP protocol. In the last month, the Tops-20 implementation of Dialnet was made to work at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. GSB has a VADIC 3405. Last Saturday, two way file transfers were done. GSB doesn't yet have the official Dialnet FTP - they are running a quickie debugging program which talks to a similar one at SAIL. It is hoped to install the official FTP program at GSB shortly. The low-level protocol implementations of Dialnet at SAIL and GSB are assembly-language code in the form of DLN: device service routines in the monitor. The official FTP program is written in SAIL, a dialect of ALGOL, for both systems. There are some implementation difficulties due to some inflexibilities in SAIL, but hopefully the person working on it can get around it. In any case, we are doing file transfers regularly between SAIL and GSB, and hopefully will soon install modems at SCORE and LOTS. The Tops-20 code can be installed in any DECsystem-20 with only a trivial edit to STG, a reLINK of the monitor, and a few patches at POSTLD time - it was done this way for the benefit of people who don't have sources. One of the things I'd like to emphasize is that Dialnet runs as part of the timesharing system and that the hairy low level protocol is completely invisible to user programs. User programs use the standard I/O system calls on a DLN: device and need not bother with details like dialing, error detection and flow control, etc. ------- 28-May-79 15:32:00-PDT,342;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 28-May-79 0246-PDT Date: 28 May 1979 05:43 edt From: Frankston.Frankston at MIT-Multics Subject: MSGGROUP#1189 Re: Dialnet status To: Mark Crispin cc: MsgGroup at MIT-ML In-Reply-To: Msg of 05/28/79 01:42 from Mark Crispin WHere can I get technical information on dialnet? 28-MAY-79 23:17:23-PDT,2544;000000000001 Mail-from: USC-ECL rcvd at 28-MAY-79 2317-PDT Date: 28 MAY 1979 2304-PDT From: MSGGROUP at USC-ECL Subject: MSGGROUP#1190 [ecl]mailing.list;200 MOVE MsgGroup to ECL, To: [ECL]MAILING.LIST;200:, To: [ISI]Recipients.Mailing-List;13: [ECL]MAILING.LIST;200: FIDDRR@AMES-67, Hathaway@AMES-67, Burchfiel@BBNA, DDeutsch@BBNA, Gonzalez@BBNA, Mathison@BBNA, Mooers@BBNA, Myer@BBNA, Sandberg@BBNA, Day@BBNB, INFOMEDIA@BBN, Pool@BBN, vonGehren@BBN, Berstein@BBND, JHaverty@BBND, Koncer@BBND, Swernofsky@BBND, MTravers@BBND, Vittal@BBND, MARS-Filer@CCA, JZS@CCA, Tom@CCA, RCT@CCA, Rick.Gumpertz@CMUA, Lehman@CMUA, BZM@CMUA, Brian.Reid@CMUA, RdMail@CMUA, Wactlar@CMUA, Caine@ECL, Carlisle@ECL, Carlson@ECL, RDeMent@ECL, Heiser@ECL, MacKenzie@ECL, JMcHugh@ECL, MsgGroup@ECL, HSmith@ECL, vonMeister@ECL, Widener@ECL, Adams@ISI, Broos@ISI, Comport@ISI, Goodwin@ISI, Kirstein@ISI, Schlaff@ISI, Spivey@ISI, Tasker@ISI, Walker@ISI, Cohen@ISIB, Ellis@ISIB, Holg@ISIB, Postel@ISIB, Stotz@ISIB, Finn@ISIE, Katz@ISIE, Schill@ISIE, JNC@MIT-AI, KLH@MIT-AI, Hewitt-Junk@MIT-AI, RMS@MIT-AI, MSGGRP@MIT-DMS, Vezza@MIT-DMS, Frankston@MIT-MULTICS, Palter@MIT-MULTICS, Sibert@MIT-MULTICS, Strayhorn.RCI@MIT-Multics, DCC@MIT-MC, HIC@MIT-MC, CBF@MIT-MC, RKJ@MIT-MC, RWK@MIT-MC, FFM@MIT-MC, Sirbu@MIT-MC, FJW@MIT-MC, KENS@MIT-ML, Cotton@NBS-10, Watkins@NBS-10, DBall@OFFICE-1, Rounds@OFFICE-1, Walsh@OFFICE-1, Zellich@OFFICE-1, ARMTE@OFFICE-2, Daniel@OFFICE-2, Engelbart@OFFICE-2, Estok@OFFICE-2, Grobstein@OFFICE-2, King@OFFICE-2, Jordan@OFFICE-2, Lux@OFFICE-2, Sternberg@OFFICE-2, Stone@OFFICE-2, Taylor@OFFICE-2, Brotz@PARC-MAXC, Danielson@PARC-MAXC, AHenderson@PARC-MAXC, Karlton@PARC-MAXC, McDaniel@PARC-MAXC, White@PARC-MAXC, Anderson@RAND-UNIX, DCrocker@RAND-UNIX, Gaines@RAND-UNIX, Greep@RAND-UNIX, Kiessig@RAND-UNIX, GRM@RAND-UNIX, Szurko@RAND-UNIX, MLW@RAND-UNIX, Farber@SRI-KA, Geoff@SRI-KA, Hewitt@SRI-KA, Ole@SRI-KA, Pine@SRI-KA, SDSAN-DMS@SRI-KA, Stef@SRI-KA, Walters@SRI-KA, Whallon@SRI-KA, Bair@SRI-KL, LCampbell@SRI-KL, Foster@SRI-KL, Future-NET@SRI-KL, Fylstra@SRI-KL, Gaschnig@SRI-KL, McLure@SRI-KL, Meyers@SRI-KL, Panko@SRI-KL, Pickens@SRI-KL, Scott@SRI-KL, DGR@SU-AI, Admin.MRC@SU-SCORE, Blohm@SUMEX-AIM, Kahler@SUMEX-AIM, Rindfleisch@SUMEX-AIM, Lauren@UCLA-SECURITY, Mike@UCLA-SECURITY, Rudisin@UCLA-SECURITY, Steve@UCLA-SECURITY, David@UTEXAS, ------- 5-JUN-79 13:49:07-PDT,786;000000000001 Mail-from: BBN-TENEXA rcvd at 5-JUN-79 1349-PDT Date: 5 Jun 1979 1615-EDT Sender: KONCER at BBN-TENEXA Subject: MSGGROUP#1191 general information systems From: KONCER at BBN-TENEXA To: stefferud at ISI Cc: koncer Message-ID: <[BBN-TENEXA] 5-Jun-79 16:15:10.KONCER> hi stef - we have a question for the message group ? does anybody use or know of development of a general information management system ? this not a management information system. we are interested in a general almanac to provide general information to a business. examples of information types are : statistics,dates, procedures names,facts,addresses,telephone abstracts,bibliography,lists best regards -daryl 16-Jun-79 16:59:21-PDT,5940;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 9-Jun-79 1958-PDT Date: 9 Jun 79 15:04-EDT (Sat) From: Dcrocker at UDel-EE Reply-to: Dcrocker at Rand-Unix Subject: MSGGROUP#1192 Delaware's Memo Distribution Project To: MsgGroup at Mit-Ml Message-ID: <79159.54245.5850 @ UDel-EE> The recent reports to MsgGroup on PCNet and DialNet make this a good time to let you know about the status of our own project, the Multi-channel Memo Distribution Facility (MMDF). The fundamental goal of the project is to allow mail transmission between machines which have access to a variety of communication lines. In particular, we want to allow inter- netting and to eliminate the need for being attached to the ArpaNet. The effort began as a low-level, minimum expenditure of resources to modify the existing mail delivery system developed at Rand as part of the MS message system (running on Unix). Although I've been spending more time on it than planned, it still is classed as a small effort. The architecture has one process which queues mail for users and is responsible for interpreting addresses and determining which output "channel" (for example, the ArpaNet is a channel, as is the local machine) the message should be sent on, for a given recipient. A separate process then manages delivery. As needed, it invokes different children to perform actual transmission, with each child responsible for a single channel. This allows all protocols and line-handling to be isolated into separate processes and modified with minimum impact on the other MMDF processes. Currently, there are modules which deliver mail through the ArpaNet, through the telephone, and to the local machine. There are two kinds of delivery modes. Active delivery is the type we are used to, with the delivery manager immediately making an attempt to send the mail out on the designated channel. Passive mode (called "Post Office Box" mode) causes the mail to be held in the queue until the RECEIVER attaches and asks for it. The need for this mode depends upon who can initiate connections. As you know, we are using Rand-Unix as a relay with the Arpanet. When you send mail to us, it has to stay at Rand until the Delaware machine calls up and asks for our mail. We have defined two protocols for use on the telephone channel. The mail protocol is quite simple and noteworthy only in its having arbitrary address lists, for each message, so that only one copy of the message text needs to be sent (in contrast with the Arpanet protocol). The line-handling protocol was designed and implemented by Ed Szurkowski (Szurko at UDel-EE) and runs entirely in the user process and without any modifications to the operating system. It handles the dialer, invokes a slave process on the other side of the connection, and passes packets back and forth. Simple checksumming is performed, with automatic retransmission on errors. Ed claims the protocol should be able to run on any system; consequently it is strictly half-duplex, although the protocol allows for the participants to negotiate a window size of larger than one packet (but we don't use that). Our attitude is that both protocols are throw aways, although Ed has been doing an upgrade of the line-protocol and I suspect it will stabilize quickly. We have other, local, needs for it. The mail protocol, definitely should be improved for more general use. It is much too fragile and loses synchrony often enough to be irritating. This doesn't seem to cause incorrect mail, but does introduce delays. The system has been usable since March and we have experienced relatively few serious problems (except for an occasional duplication and some receiver irritation at the extra header information we attach and an occasional duplication...) In fact, we found ourselves relying on it almost immediately and the worst that has resulted from this was trying to send time- critical mail that ended up hanging in a queue too long. Our entire mail environment, at UDel-EE, is tied into MMDF. Currently, the only substantial limitation is that the Rand FTP server does not tie into MMDF, so that we a) have to hack pickup of mail from personal mailboxes at Rand, and b) only those of us with Rand mailboxes can receive Arpanet mail. The server limitation is the reason that we've had to play games with adding Udel-EE to the ArpaNet host table. SRI has a project to produce a Unix-based mail system for the deaf and they are using MMDF to perform delivery. The initial installation of their system will be at Gallaudet (sp?) College in Washington, D.C. and they plan to use MMDF's telephone ability to exchange mail between D.C. and the SRI-TSC Unix. Performance statistics: On the Arpanet, I generally claim you can expect delivery of a message between two hosts within about fifteen minutes (the typicial sleep cycle for background mailers). Between an Arpanet host and Delaware, it seems to average a few hours (2-4), where the the MMDF mailers at Rand and at Delaware are on 30-minute sleep cycles. We are using a 300-baud dial up and seem to get an effective bandwidth of about 200 baud. That works out to a bit over a kilobyte per minute. I was amazed to find that that is quite usable, although it wouldn't be if we had to sit and watch the transfer. Moving to 1200 baud and using some simple data compression should be able to improve the rate by a factor of eight. Plans now are to stablize the system, document it, and make it more generally available. The Army (Darcom) expects to be using it later this year. Dave. 16-Jun-79 16:59:22-PDT,1365;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 10-Jun-79 1630-PDT Date: 9 June 1979 21:42-PDT (Saturday) From: WANCHO at SRI-KA To: MSGGROUP@MIT-ML Cc: Wancho@SRI-KA, MARS-Filer@CCA Subject: MSGGROUP#1193 Special Interest Group Mailing Lists (Maybe this time an inoffensive header?) Perhaps this has been done before, but in about two years of working on the net, I have yet to find some sort of repository of what Special Interest Group Mailing lists are available on the net. So, I would like to take on the task of compiling a fairly brief file containing the following information as received from the maintainers of their respective lists (or other interested parties, like yourselves): o Name of the group/list; o The network address and name of the maintainer of the list (if any); o A brief (one or two line) description of why the list exists, e.g. "To exchange/disseminate information about terminals."; o Whom to contact to get added to the list; o How to send a message to the list; o Location and access method of filed or archived correspondence. After some reasonable period of time for gathering and editing any replies to this plea, I will send out the location and name of the file containing this information. Thanks, Frank 16-Jun-79 16:59:22-PDT,1495;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 10-Jun-79 1740-PDT Date: 10 Jun 1979 1737-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-1 Subject: MSGGROUP#1194 Re: Special Interest Group Mailing Lists To: WANCHO at SRI-KA, MSGGROUP at MIT-ML cc: MARS-Filer at CCA, ZELLICH, Feinler at SRI-KL, NIC at SRI-KL In response to the message sent 9 June 1979 21:42-PDT (Saturday) from WANCHO@SRI-KA Attention Jake Feinler: Assuming someone else (Frank Wancho, apparently) does the work of initial compilation, would it be reasonable for the NIC to maintain such a list -- both online and perhaps as a special section of both the Directory and Resource Handbook? Maintenance of the list would naturally have to be voluntary with the organizer/maintainer of each specific interest group and so would be somewhat incorrect, obsolete, or out-of-date much of the time but, then, I assume that is generally true of the Directory and Res. Handbook anyway. Could the NIC pick this up on its own, or would it require DCA approval? I think addition of a list of this type (perhaps simplified a little from Frank's list, at least for Dir/Handbook inclusion) could be an extremely important addition to the NIC services -- certainly it's available nowhere else [and noone not currently in one of the special interest groups Frank may be informed of will have any hint that such a list exists anywhere - maybe not even after they have learned of the specific existence of one or more such groups] Rich ------- 16-Jun-79 16:59:22-PDT,954;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 10-Jun-79 2301-PDT Date: 10 Jun 1979 2249-PDT Sender: STEF at SRI-KA Subject: MSGGROUP#1195 Re: Special Interest Group Mailing Lists From: STEF at SRI-KA To: WANCHO Cc: MSGGROUP at MIT-ML, MARS-Filer at CCA Message-ID: <[SRI-KA]10-Jun-79 22:49:22.STEF> In-Reply-To: Your message of 9 June 1979 21:42-PDT (Saturday) HI Frank, et al - I would suggest that a useful approach would be to make the entries in a message format so that the info on each group could be handled with message processors. Then the various BBD facilities could be used to make the info available, and people could pass the info around handily among themselves without having to learn of special query systems, and having to retype info to pass it around. Also, this would allow group coordinators to directly submit original info and to directly maintain the records using tools that are familiar to themselves. Best - Stef 16-Jun-79 16:59:22-PDT,1150;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 11-Jun-79 1027-PDT Date: 11 June 1979 13:32-EDT From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." Subject: MSGGROUP#1196 Re: Special Interest Group Mailing Lists To: WANCHO at MIT-MC, STEF at SRI-KA cc: MSGGROUP at MIT-ML, MARS-Filer at CCA-TENEX Stef's message about using the mail system for building a file on Special Interest Group Mailing Lists says something interesting about in gebneral about systems for filing and handling text. In essence what he is saying is that in the course of building our mail systems we have developed all the necessary formatting and indexing facilities to provide a general purpose document library and indexing system, and that indeed, if a document arrives to us in some form other than a "message" (e.g. via a file transfer) we have to send it to ourselves a s a message in order to use all our neat tools. It suggests that we either need better filing and indexing facilities for non-messages, or that the office of the future will be totally designed around the message system, in which case our message systems are going to be carrying a very large burden. 16-Jun-79 16:59:22-PDT,963;000000000001 Mail-from: OFFICE-1 rcvd at 11-Jun-79 1115-PDT Date: 11 Jun 1979 1117-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-1 Subject: MSGGROUP#1197 Re: Special Interest Group Mailing Lists To: "Marvin A. Sirbu at MIT-MC, SIRBU at MIT-MC, WANCHO at MIT-MC, To: STEF at SRI-KA cc: MSGGROUP at MIT-ML, MARS-Filer at CCA-TENEX, ZELLICH In response to the message sent 11 June 1979 13:32-EDT from "Marvin A. Sirbu,,SIRBU@MIT-MC We definitely need better filing/indexing/retrieving systems for non- messages. It disturbs me to see a trend in some quarters toward building an office automation system, including text editors, around a good mail system rather than building an O/A system, including a mailer, around a good text editor & filing/indexing system. One ought to be able to read mail with the same tool(s) used for any other textual document and the special mail code should only be required for address- manipulation for sending, replying, etc. ------- 16-Jun-79 16:59:22-PDT,1174;000000000001 Date: 11 JUN 1979 2205-EDT Subject: MSGGROUP#1198 Re: Special Interest Group Mailing Lists From: RWK at MIT-MC (Robert W. Kerns) To: Wancho at SRI-KA Cc: msggroup at MIT-ML Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 11-Jun-79 1859-PDT Frank, how narrow of special-interest groups do you want to list? In the narrowest sense, MIT-AI/MC/ML/DM have a very large number of mailing lists. Many of these are quite trivial, and should be ignored by the world (and all the participants would want it that way). Others are network-wide discussion-groups, like MsgGroup, HEADER-PEOPLE, etc. And a lot fall somwhere inbetween, such as INFO-TERMS (terminal information discussion-group), INFO-, the NIL discussion group, etc. It would seem that you want to be somewhat selective. Some possible criterea include: Purely local vs. large inter-site participation. Open to anyone who's interested vs. only people in specific groups. One-way information dissemination vs. multi-way discussion. Large vs. small. Transient vs. long-term. Perhaps some of these (such as one-way/multi-way) deserve to be separate sub-listings in your scheme. 24-JUN-79 03:28:03-PDT,1870;000000000001 Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 18-JUN-79 0837-PDT Date: 18 June 1979 1033-EDT Subject: MSGGROUP#1199 Info collection for compromise From: David.Lamb at CMU-10A To: MSGGROUP at MIT-ML Message-ID: <18Jun79 103335 DL10@CMU-10A> In-Reply-To: <[SRI-KA] 7-Jun-79 16:06:16.STEF> Folks: Over the last few months I've seen a lot of exchanges where someone reported that some aspect of someone else's mail sender was making his/her life difficult. The problems usually boil down to the fact that many (perhaps most) sites don't implement "full" RFC733; either the sender sends something not according to the standard, or the receiver doesn't recognise something permitted by the standard. This effectively means that despite the existence of the standard, we often have trouble communicating with each other. I am interested in trying to determine a subset of RFC733 supported by most sites. My short-term hope is that those mail senders which are readily reconfigured or changed can be convinced to use only the subset when communicating across the net. In particular, I hope to be able to make RDMAIL do this. I intent to document what I find in the hope that other mail system maintainers might be inclined to do the same. I am sure that many cases will arise where some sort of compromise would have to be negotiated, but I believe the attempt is worthwhile. If you know of any feature of someone else's mailer that causes problems for your reader, or any feature of your mailer that causes someone else a problem, please send a note to Lamb at CMU-10A describing the problem, including the specific mailer and reader and what part of RFC733 was involved. Please note that I am NOT trying to change RFC733, or to force people to implement the full thing; I'm just trying to help stabilize the current setup. David Alex Lamb 24-JUN-79 03:28:03-PDT,3458;000000000001 Date: 18 Jun 1979 1642-PDT Subject: MSGGROUP#1200 Re: Special Interest Group Mailing Lists From: Feinler at SRI-KL (Jake Feinler) To: Zellich at OFFICE-1, WANCHO at SRI-KA, MSGGROUP at MIT-ML Cc: MARS-Filer at CCA Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 18-JUN-79 1718-PDT In response to the message sent 10 Jun 1979 1737-PDT from Zellich@OFFICE-1 Dear Rich, Frank, et al, Special Interest Groups have a long history at the NIC and on the Arpanet. In the old days (circa 72-74) the NIC used to maintain the group distribution lists and distribute working papers to all members of the groups upon request of the group coordinator. This (along with other NIC document distribution) amounted to distribution of over 80,000 hardcopy documents a year as well as journal and mail distribution to those who wished to receive online copies. The hardcopy distribution was stopped in 1974 due to lack of funding. At that time we attempted to still maintain the group membership lists as a network service. By 1975 (when funds were cut to the nub) we cut back on maintaining the distribution lists (mainly because most of the working groups and SIGs were defunct) and just attempted to keep a list of active groups and their coordinators. If users were interested they checked with the coordinator. In 1977 DCA said to cut this list from the Arpanet Directory...no particular reason...they just surmised that many of the groups were no longer active and also thought some of them were not in the interests of the Arpanet (Science Fiction for instance). At about the same time, I approached a member of ARPA (have blotted out who the person was by this time) asking him for permission to list his working group and cite him as coordinator of the group. He became very irate and said he did not want his name or the existence of the group to appear in print because he would be hounded by hacker types trying to add their two cents worth and it was a 'working' group not a public forum. There are other coordinators of actual working groups (i.e., funded and with a definite goal to accomplish) that feel the same way. Consequently, I would be willing to maintain the group distribution lists if the coordinator of the group is agreeable and is willing to send me the names, addresses, phone numbers, network mailboxes, etc., of the new members as they are added. I think it would be better to work with the coordinators directly rather than have Frank collect the information and then have some confusion as to who is collecting this info. I would welcome a list of such groups if he has collected same for the Darcom Info Center. You are correct in saying that these lists are frequently out of date. This is true because the coordinator himself often doesn't update or cull the membership. In addition these groups are often active for a while and then fade but no one bothers to tell the NIC or the coordinator claims they are active when in fact there is no traffic among the members. Given this I would not want to list the membership of such groups in either the Arpanet Directory or the Resource Handbook. Would be glad to go back to listing the names of the groups and who the coordinators of each group are though. And finally, we would prefer not to get heavily into this until our current sweep for the Arpanet Directory is past its peak...a couple of weeks ought to do it. Regards, Jake