1-May-81 02:55:17-PDT,6705;000000000001
Mail-From: STEF
Received-Date: 1-May-81 0254-PDT    
Date: 1 May 1981 0254-PDT
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1601  SURVEY [ECL]<MSGGROUP>MSGGROUP#.1551-1600
From: MsgGroup@ecl
Reply-To: EStefferud at ECL
To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Message-ID: <[DARCOM-KA] 1-May-81 02:54:31.STEF>
Fcc: <STEF>SAVED.MESSAGES;1

The indicated file may be FTPed from [ECL], or you may request
specific items by number to be redistributed to you.  Send any
requests to MSGGROUP@ECL or to EStefferud@ECL.  Best - Stef
	
MSGGROUP#1551  SURVEY [ECL]<MSGGROUP>MSGGROUP#.1501-1550
 6235 chars 27 MAY 1980 2339-PDT From: MSGGROUP at USC-ECL To: MsgGroup 

MSGGROUP#1552  Re: Info on Office Automation
 2097 chars 28 May 1980 at 1017-PDT From: Gaines at Rand-Unix To: STEFFE

MSGGROUP#1553  Re: Info on Office Automation
 1085 chars 29 May 1980 0055-PDT From: STEFFERUD at OFFICE-1 To: Gaines 

MSGGROUP#1554  Call for Papers IFIP Symposium Computer Message Systems
 1328 chars 29 May 80 21:58-EDT (Thu) From: Farber at UDel-EE To: msggro

MSGGROUP#1555  Request for ideas on textbooks
 1008 chars  5 JUN 1980 1152-PDT From: Hathaway at AMES-67 To: MSGGROUP 

MSGGROUP#1556  Re: Request for ideas on textbooks
  536 chars  5 Jun 1980 1246-PDT From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF To:   Hathaway

MSGGROUP#1557  [Walsh: BUDGET TECHNIQUES IN NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS]
 1266 chars 6 Jun 1980 2104-PDT From: STEFFERUD at OFFICE-1 To: MSGGROUP

MSGGROUP#1558  Results of textbook information request
 2134 chars 10 JUN 1980 0822-PDT From: Hathaway at AMES-67 To: MSGGROUP 

MSGGROUP#1559  Correspondence Mgmnt Sys [quote]
 5074 chars 25 JUN 1980 1053-PDT From: JMCHUGH at USC-ECL To:   MsgGroup

MSGGROUP#1560  RFC 764 Now Available
  625 chars 13 Jun 1980 1526-PDT From: LINDA at USC-ISIF To:   [ISIF]<Li

MSGGROUP#1561  Info on Office Automation
  900 chars 18 Jun 1980 1152-PDT From: BERTAPELLE at USC-ISI To: SROSS a

MSGGROUP#1562  RFC 765 Available
  608 chars 18 Jun 1980 2107-PDT From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF To:   [ISIF]<L

MSGGROUP#1563  How does OA change managers?
  900 chars  3 JUL 1980 1800-PDT From: JMCHUGH at USC-ECL To:   MsgGroup

MSGGROUP#1564  Re: How does OA change managers?
  690 chars 7 Jul 1980 0748-PDT From: BERTAPELLE at USC-ISI To: JMCHUGH 

MSGGROUP#1565  ARPANET NEWS from DCA 
17485 chars  1 Jul 1980 0234-PDT From: Feinler at SRI-KL 

MSGGROUP#1566  ELECTRONIC VS PAPER MEDIA CONTINUA- A COMPARISON
11427 chars 7 Jul 1980 2321-PDT From: STEFFERUD at OFFICE-1 To: MSGGROUP

MSGGROUP#1567  RFC 766 Now Available
  601 chars  8 Jul 1980 2101-PDT From: LINDA at USC-ISIF To:   "[ISIF]<L

MSGGROUP#1568  request for msg system info
  592 chars 15 Jul 1980 0940-PDT From: GOODWIN at USC-ISI To: msggroup a

MSGGROUP#1569  IFIP Symposium
 3387 chars 22 Aug 1980 1320-EDT From: MYER at BBNA To: msggroup at MIT-

MSGGROUP#1570  RFC 759 Available
  721 chars 23 Aug 1980 0154-PDT From: LINDA at USC-ISIF To:   "[ISIF]<L

MSGGROUP#1571  RFCs 767 & 768
  901 chars  5 Sep 1980 2142-PDT From: LINDA at USC-ISIF To:   "[ISIF]<L

MSGGROUP#1572  Telenet
  490 chars 26 Sep 1980 0200-PDT (Friday) From: Lauren at UCLA-SECURITY 

MSGGROUP#1573  RFC 769 Available
  746 chars 26 Sep 1980 2232-PDT From: BROWN at USC-ISIF To:   "[ISIF]<B

MSGGROUP#1574   NBS Computer Standards
 3147 chars  27 September 1980 15:14 edt From:  Sibert at MIT-Multics (W

MSGGROUP#1575  Re:  NBS Computer Standards
  949 chars 27 Sep 1980 1623-EDT From: DDEUTSCH at BBNA To: Sibert at MI

MSGGROUP#1576  Re: NBS Computer Standards
  762 chars 29 Sep 1980 0841-EDT From: POGRAN at BBND To:   Sibert.Multi

MSGGROUP#1577  NBS Computer Standards
  749 chars 29 September 1980  11:12-EDT  Monday From: John A. Pershing 

MSGGROUP#1578  NBS Standards Program in Computer Based Office Systems
 1000 chars 30 Sep 1980 (Tuesday) 0933-EST From: WATKINS at NBS-10 To:  

MSGGROUP#1579  New RFCs Available
 1357 chars  1 Oct 1980 0232-PDT From: BROWN at USC-ISIF To:   "[ISIF]<B

MSGGROUP#1580  RFC 773 Available
  747 chars  1 Oct 1980 2146-PDT From: BROWN at USC-ISIF To:   "[ISIF]<B

MSGGROUP#1581  Call for Papers
 4095 chars  8 Oct 1980 1719-PDT From: Brian K. Reid <CSL.BKR at SU-SCOR

MSGGROUP#1582  INWG Announcement
 2805 chars 11 Dec 1980 2155-PST From: BROWN at USC-ISIF To:   "[ISIF]<B

MSGGROUP#1583  CLEARING THE DECK FOR ACTION
 4093 chars 22 DEC 1980 0327-PST From: MSGGROUP at USC-ECL To:   "[ECL]<

MSGGROUP#1584  Mail systems for VAX/VMS
  462 chars 22 Dec 1980 2124-EST From: Marvin Sirbu <SIRBU at MIT-XX> To

MSGGROUP#1585  Re: Mail systems for VAX/VMS
  891 chars 22 Dec 1980 2252-PST From: Stef at DARCOM-KA To: SIRBU at MI

MSGGROUP#1586  CORRECTION Re: Mail systems for VAX/VMS
 1077 chars 23 Dec 1980 2155-PST From: Stef at DARCOM-KA To: MsgGroup at

MSGGROUP#1587  The Computer Science Network
 4461 chars 17 Jan 81 08:16-EST (Sat) From: Dave Farber <Farber@UDel-EE>

MSGGROUP#1588  Crime and electronic mail
 1223 chars 19 JAN 1981 1736-EST From: SIRBU at MIT-MC (Marvin A. Sirbu,

MSGGROUP#1589  RFC 776 Available
  748 chars 27 Jan 1981 0028-PST From: LINDA at USC-ISIF To:   "[ISIF]<L

MSGGROUP#1590  NBS Draft Report on Message Format Standard
  676 chars 30 Jan 1981 2041-PST From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich

MSGGROUP#1591  NBS Draft Report on Message Format Standard
  401 chars  2 Feb 1981 (Monday) 0950-EST From: WATKINS at NBS-10 To:   

MSGGROUP#1592  FCC Notice of Inquiry for General Docket 80-756
24218 chars 10 Feb 1981 1725-PST From: STEFFERUD at OFFICE-3 To: MsgGrou

MSGGROUP#1593  [STEFFERUD: MSGGROUP#1592  FCC Notice of Inquir...]
 3224 chars 10 Feb 1981 1922-PST From: STEFFERUD at OFFICE-3 To: MSGGROU

MSGGROUP#1594  Para 1 & 20 extracted from the FCC NOI for Docket 80-756
 4410 chars 11 Feb 1981 1437-PST From: STEFFERUD at OFFICE   To: MsgGrou

MSGGROUP#1595  Symposium on Computer Message Systems on April 6-8
 3749 chars 6 Mar 1981 1727-EST From: MYER at BBNG To: HUMAN-NETS at MIT

MSGGROUP#1596  Anybody else hear of these folks?
  971 chars 10 MAR 1981 2136-EST From: KLH at MIT-AI (Ken Harrenstien) T

MSGGROUP#1597  FTP Info for Symposium on Computer Message 
               Systems on April 6-8
  894 chars 13 Mar 1981 1642-EST From: LOVETT at BBND To: HUMAN-NETS at 

MSGGROUP#1598  SNA and Bisync here to stay???
  984 chars  2 APR 1981 0041-EST From: FFM at MIT-MC (Steve Kudlak) To: 

MSGGROUP#1599  RFCs 777 and 778 now available
 1151 chars 21 Apr 1981 1536-PST From: LINDA at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<Lin

MSGGROUP#1600  RFC779 now available
  780 chars 29 Apr 1981 1714-PDT From: LINDA at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<Lin

		
23-May-81 01:50:17-PDT,845;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-3 rcvd at 20-May-81 0153-PDT
Date: 18 May 1981 1522-PDT
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1602  RFC 780 now available
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]18-May-81 15:22:39.WESTINE>

      A new RFC is now available in the NIC online library at SRI-KL.

      RFC 780:

         Title:   Mail Transfer Protocol 
         Author:  S. Sluizer and J. Postel
         Pages :  43

            pathname: [SRI-KL]<NETINFO>RFC780.TXT

         Defines the new Mail Transfer Protocol (MTP) to be used for 
         Internet Text Mail.  Designed to be used with both TCP and NCP.

      Public access files may be copied from the NIC library at SRI-KL 
      via FTP with username NICGUEST and password ARPA.

      --jon.

23-May-81 01:50:17-PDT,851;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-3 rcvd at 23-May-81 0017-PDT
Date: 22 May 1981 1750-PDT
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1603  RFC 781 Available
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]22-May-81 17:50:13.WESTINE>

      A new RFC is now available in the NIC online library at SRI-KL.

      RFC 781:

         Title:   A Specification of the Internet (IP) Protocol 
         Timestamp Option 
         Author:  Zaw-Sing Su
         Pages :  2

            pathname: [SRI-KL]<NETINFO>RFC781.TXT

         Defines the Time Stamp Option used in the Internet Protocol for
         measuring delays in the Internet.

      Public access files may be copied from the NIC library at SRI-KL 
      via FTP with username NICGUEST and password ARPA.

      --jon.

12-Jun-81 22:55:18-PDT,2204;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 31-MAY-81 2123-PDT
Date:  1 Jun 1981 (Monday) 0004-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1604  Recent events, an opinion.
To:   arpa-protec at MIT-AI, MSGROUP at MIT-ML

The issue here is:	Users of the ARPAnet not directly related to a
given project, and not aware of the politics can potentially compromise
the network.

Breakdown:	MIT & its Open policy has in the past invited some of
this [site: BBOARD fiasco as an example].
Point:		The ARPAnet is not an open ended system. Its intent is
for, government sponsored activities.
Moderation:	The sponsoring agencies allow a certain degree of
latitude in the network's use.

At each site, there is a designated 'Liaison', who is responsible for
the actions at his site.  In regard to the Amethyst situation, I would
hope the liaison has been informed (?). Part of his duties is to
maintain to a certain degree the user community of the resource.

Ultimately he is responsible.  Some liaison's are more open than
others. It is this lack of consistency that opens these doors.  The TIP
liaisons are responsible (in part) in keeping the malicious High
Schoolers and hackers off the net. They don't help the situation any.
And as more and more Micro's are sold, this problem becomes all the
more apparent.

I move for an across the board consistent policy regarding access be
instituted. With such a policy, such issues as this will be handled -
and probably prevented. For example, for each net-user at a given site,
a 2 page "GroundRules" could be distributed.

I don't like many of the attitudes here.  The network is not a toy, but
a real money, budgeted resource.  One day, a letter like what was sent
via USPS could spoil much more than I care to think.  Rather than
having many people calm other people down, we must police ourselves to
a greater extent than currently evidenced.

I also recommend a review of all hosts and TIPS, as this might help
other Liaisons determine the best policy to fill the needs.

In addition, at SRI, when someone sent a questionable message,
immediate and proper action was taken.  Lets learn from that.


Henry Dreifus
12-Jun-81 22:55:18-PDT,4725;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 31-MAY-81 2214-PDT
Date: 1 June 1981 00:53-EDT
From: Leonard N. Foner <FONER at MIT-AI>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1605  Recent events, an opinion.
To: DREIFU at WHARTON-10
cc: ARPA-PROTEC at MIT-AI, MsgGroup at MIT-ML

As a tourist who uses MIT-AI through MIT's good graces, I may be
somewhat off base by replying on this subject.  However, it is
tourists who may have the most to lose from a tightening of ARPAnet
access policy, unless it is clear that without such action researchers
and others with a more legitimate reason to use the net will be harmed
by those who abuse the net.  Harm to those who do legitimate research
using the ARPAnet of course takes priority over harm to those who use
the net for non-ARPA sponsored research---but it may well be possible
to allow both groups to continue unharmed.

To start, it may not be quite fair to assign the entire blame to MIT
and its tourist policy, for two reasons.  First, MIT was the site in
question only because of its rather sophisticated mailer, which
supports such things as mailing lists.  The original message must have
originated from UTEXAS (I cannot be sure since I never saw it, but I
know Barry and know he is a student there...  and formerly from MIT).
Had MIT not been the redistributor, he could have sent the messages
himself without MIT's mailer.  Of course, the real issue here is his
rather free mention of using the ARPAnet for non-sponsored research in
an essentially public mailing.  Had the work been ARPA-sponsored, of
course, the problem would not have come up.

But back to my second point.  MIT, at least, has started implementing
a new tourist policy designed precisely to address these issues.  As a
tourist, I received recently an application to be read, signed, and
returned.  In this application were detailed various good uses of
MIT's computer resources, as well as caveats about things that a tourist
should not do.  It is through such a mechanism that tourists can be
made aware of the necessity of not compromising their own position.
Since all MIT tourists will receive these applications, it is fairly
simple at least to warn them about abusing the network, especially for
commercial purposes.

So, what can we learn from this unfortunate incident?  First, that all
users of the net, and especially tourists on any system (presumably,
but not necessarily, knowing little about proper uses of the ARPAnet),
should be informed as to its intended uses, and what is strictly
forbidden (such as profitmaking from the net).  This would also
include at least a suggestion of self-censorship in discussing what
the DCA might view as abuses of the net.  Discussion of funded
research on the net seems fine, of course, since that is what the
ARPAnet was designed to do---funded research.  The DCA cannot ignore
nonfunded (read illegal) uses of the net if it is to have its
collective face rubbed in the mud by having such abuses publicized.

The message here is that, though some amount of monkey business goes
on at any time (for instance, not being funded by DCA, ARPA, or the
DoD in composing this letter, I am theoretically not supposed to be
using their resources to distribute it---but I could if I was funded
to do research which included writing this letter), the amount of said
monkey business should be at as low a level as possible.  Further, DCA
should not have to be publicly embarrassed by public abuses of its
resources---or these resources could go the way of the dodo bird.

If this is made adequately clear to all by the site liaisons at EACH
site (not just MIT, implicated repeatedly only because of the ease of
redistributing mail through COMSAT), the problem should go away or at
least be very much diminished.

Not being a part of the Arpa-Protec list, I have no idea if I've just
duplicated a previous line of argument.  However, I still think that
my points are valid.  There are good ("educational", and I do not mean
high schoolers for the most part, but "real" CS people doing work on
things that don't happen to be ARPA funded at the time) reasons for
using the ARPAnet when not explicitly funded to do so, but an equally
compelling set of problems facing all due to uninformed or irresponsible
users.  These two facets of ARPAnet use must be very carefully
balanced.

If I've just stepped on anyone's toes, I'm sorry.  If anyone has any
comments on the whole situation, they should be brought out in the
open.  Without corrective action of some kind, constantly rising use
of the net (by both funded and nonfunded people) will cause the same
problems to recur with greater and greater frequency.

						<LNF>
12-Jun-81 22:55:18-PDT,1322;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 31-MAY-81 2257-PDT
Date: 31 May 1981 2237-PDT
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1606  PLEASE OMIT MSGGROUP Re: Recent events, an opinion.
From: STEF at DARCOM-KA
To: FONER at MIT-AI
Cc: ARPA-PROTEC at MIT-AI, MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Message-ID: <[DARCOM-KA]31-May-81 22:37:02.STEF>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 1 June 1981 00:53-EDT

Yes Leonard, I think you stepped out of bounds when you added MsgGroup
to the discussion without checking to see if this might be a proper
subject for MsgGroup.  4000 character messages dumped on 200
uninterested people is a bit more than we should expect.

As coordinator of MsgGroup, it is my opinion that this is not a proper
topic for such a large group which is not primarily focused on issues
related to protection of the ARPANET from anything for any reason.

ARPA-PROTEC contains the distilled list of people from msgGroup who are
so concerned.  Therefore, I will be most pleased if subsequent replies
following this one will omit MsgGroup from the addresses.

I think you also exhibited poor etiquette by admittedly barging in
without first researching what has been said in the discussion up till
now.  As you know, the transcript is available to you at MIT-** so you
could have easily examined it first.

Best - Stef
12-Jun-81 22:55:18-PDT,3596;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 1-JUN-81 0157-PDT
Date: 1 Jun 1981 0130-PDT
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1607  [DREIFU at WHARTON (Henry Dreifus): Recent...]
From: STEF at DARCOM-KA
To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Message-ID: <[DARCOM-KA] 1-Jun-81 01:30:53.STEF>

My Apologies to Jim Foner regarding MsgGroup inclusion ...

In all good faith, I cannot ignore the fact the Henry Dreifus was the
one who first dumped the Amethyst discussion into MsgGroup, but I did
not notice because he misspelled the address, and it did not go through
the MIT COMSAT remailing process.  It is still stuck there no doubt,
waiting for someone to clean out the barrel of lost undeliverable mail
in the MIT-** dead message files.

I hope someone will catch it there and destroy it because I am enlosing
a copy here-with.  I do not see any way to avoid sending it through, and
it might as well be now as a week from now.

I still think this is not a MsgGroup issue, and I hope we are not now
going to be deluged with discussion about how I have managed to shoot
myself in the foot on this.

I imagine that for some of you, this will only have whetted your
appetites for more.  If so, please ask Henry Dreifus or Jim Foner to
privately fill you in, or point you to the transcript at MIT-**.

Best Regards - Stef

	
Begin forwarded message
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2208 chars

Subject: Recent events, an opinion.

Date:  1 Jun 1981 (Monday) 0004-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus) - - 
To:   arpa-protec at MIT-AI, MSGROUP at MIT-ML

The issue here is:	Users of the ARPAnet not directly related to a
given project, and not aware of the politics can potentially compromise
the network.

Breakdown:	MIT & its Open policy has in the past invited some of
this [site: BBOARD fiasco as an example].
Point:		The ARPAnet is not an open ended system. Its intent is
for, government sponsored activities.
Moderation:	The sponsoring agencies allow a certain degree of
latitude in the network's use.

At each site, there is a designated 'Liaison', who is responsible for
the actions at his site.  In regard to the Amethyst situation, I would
hope the liaison has been informed (?). Part of his duties is to
maintain to a certain degree the user community of the resource.

Ultimately he is responsible.  Some liaison's are more open than
others. It is this lack of consistency that opens these doors.  The TIP
liaisons are responsible (in part) in keeping the malicious High
Schoolers and hackers off the net. They don't help the situation any.
And as more and more Micro's are sold, this problem becomes all the
more apparent.

I move for an across the board consistent policy regarding access be
instituted. With such a policy, such issues as this will be handled -
and probably prevented. For example, for each net-user at a given site,
a 2 page "GroundRules" could be distributed.

I don't like many of the attitudes here.  The network is not a toy, but
a real money, budgeted resource.  One day, a letter like what was sent
via USPS could spoil much more than I care to think.  Rather than
having many people calm other people down, we must police ourselves to
a greater extent than currently evidenced.

I also recommend a review of all hosts and TIPS, as this might help
other Liaisons determine the best policy to fill the needs.

In addition, at SRI, when someone sent a questionable message,
immediate and proper action was taken.  Lets learn from that.


Henry Dreifus




*END MSG 
End forwarded message
12-Jun-81 22:55:18-PDT,1008;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 1-JUN-81 0805-PDT
Date: 1 Jun 1981 0741-PDT
Sender: ROUNDS at OFFICE-3
Subject: MSGGROUP#1608  You can't tell the players without a scorecard....
From: WMartin at Office-3
To: msgGroup at MIT-ML
Cc: WMartin
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 1-Jun-81 07:41:02.ROUNDS>

Well, it seems we here on Msggroup have been let in on the middle
of a discussion which has been going on for some time on
ARPA-PROTEC.  When people do that, it would really be helpful to
send a summary of the previous exchange to the new addressee or
mailing-list, so we know what the devil people are talking about.
What is this mysterious "letter like what was sent via USPS"
Dreifus mentioned?  What was the "original message" which might
or might not have originated at UTEXAS, as cited by Foner?  And
what is "the Amethyst situation"?  [Eerie music in the
background....]  Tune in next week for the exciting continuation
of our serial, and keep those boxtops coming in...

Bemusedly, Will Martin
12-Jun-81 22:55:18-PDT,2242;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 2-JUN-81 0640-PDT
Date:  2 Jun 1981 0524-PDT
From: Barns at OFFICE  
Subject: MSGGROUP#1609  Re: Dreifus: Recent events, an opinion.
To:   MsgGroup at MIT-ML

Yes.  Definitely.

But, I see three problem areas which are potentially solvable - but
probably will go unsolved:

1) TIP login of a meaningful nature.  Don't know current status of this.
Also related is the fact that (at least hereabouts) TIP phone numbers
are not changed often due to the problems of working with the phone
company.  This is more of a problem with TIPs on government premises.
Seems to be some politics; I won't say that Ma Bell wants this sort of
thing to go on, because I don't know any such thing, but it has that
effect.

2) Liaison as an additional duty.  Don't know much about the situation
at university connected sites, but when I worked for DOD, all the
liaisons I knew were grossly overworked and totally unable to maintain
any sort of control over the use of the TIPs, much less hosts.  My
impression was that the TIP liaison is usually whoever knows how to
diagnose comm failures.  This skill is in heavy demand, so they spend
most time on that.  During my term in the Pentagon there were only 3
people (myself being one) who were remotely capable of doing anything
meaningful with the TIP or other comm stuff.  The guy currently doing it
is also doing all the comm and file transfer software for 18 large
systems as well as disk drive maintenance.  I'm sure he has no idea what
any of the TIP users are doing - how could he have time?

3) This may be an unfair statement, as I have never been connected with
any of the MIT systems or groups, but it's my impression that most net
users who really shouldn't be net users are involved in some way with
the MIT systems.  I don't know the story there, but some way or other,
they give out a lot of directories to people with no evident connection
to any sort of sponsored use of the net.

Bill Barns
[TYMSHARE Washington DC Office]

P.S.  The Pentagon-TIP liaison has no account anywhere on the Arpanet
and consequently cannot use it himself.  He must be the only person in
town in this situation.  How's that for security???
-------
12-Jun-81 22:55:18-PDT,3632;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 2-JUN-81 0915-PDT
Date: 2 Jun 1981 0732-PDT
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1610  ARPA-PROTEC Amethyst Transcript
From: STEF at DARCOM-KA
To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Message-ID: <[DARCOM-KA] 2-Jun-81 07:32:51.STEF>

Hi All ...  In response to Will Martin's gentle chiding, and Henry
Dreifus' not so gentle urging I have collected together the ARPA-PROTEC
messages into a file to be placed in

        [ECL]<MSGGROUP>ARPA-PROTEC.AMETHYST;1

for anyone who is interested to access via FTP, or if you prefer, I will
REDISTRIBUTE the lot of them to you via netmail, on request.

Another copy of the transcript is in the following file at MIT:

        MC:OAF;ARPAPR NOTES

Below is a SURVEY of the transcript to give you information on the
volume and timing of the Amethyst Episode.  It entailed a potential
abuse of net access privileges which has been resolved.

The open ARPA-PROTEC discussion of this episode has ended, so you might
want to think carefully before chiming in.  If you are interested,
please examine the transcrpt before adding to it.

Best regards, Stef

	

Subject:  Amethyst Users Group newsletter's inappropriate mention (and
        use) of ARPANET.
 3348 chars 28 May 1981 1139-PDT From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow

Subject:  Amethyst Users Group newsletter's inappropriate mention (and
	use) of ARPANET.
 2332 chars 28 May 1981 22:40-EDT From: Pandora B. Berman <CENT at MIT-A

Subject: Scandal: Arpanet accused of discussing computer programs
  953 chars 28 May 1981 23:32-EDT From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-

Subject: Re: Amethyst Users Group newsletter's inappropriate mention ...
  833 chars 28 May 1981 2035-PDT From: STEF at DARCOM-KA To: CENT at MIT

Subject:  Amethyst Users Group newsletter's inappropriate mention (and
	use) of ARPANET.
 1501 chars 29 May 1981 00:15-EDT From: Robert W. Kerns <RWK at MIT-MC> 

Subject: Scandal: Arpanet accused of discussing computer programs
 1773 chars Friday, 29 May 1981  00:11-EDT From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <

Subject:  Amythest mailing list problem
 1082 chars 29 May 1981 02:28-EDT From: Christopher C. Stacy <CSTACY at 

Subject: Scandal: Arpanet accused of discussing computer programs
 1092 chars 29 May 1981 18:35-EDT From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-

Subject: Re: Scandal: Arpanet accused of discussing computer programs
 1993 chars 29 May 1981 1914-EDT From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <Solomon at

Subject: Re: Scandal: Arpanet accused of discussing computer programs
 2571 chars 29 May 1981 1744-PDT From: STEF at DARCOM-KA To: Solomon at 

Subject: Amethyst users group not related to tourism
 1089 chars 29 May 1981 22:47-EDT From: Richard M. Stallman <RMS at MIT-

Subject:  Amethyst-Users
 1297 chars 31 May 1981 23:12-EDT From: Frank J. Wancho <FJW at MIT-MC> 

Subject: Re:  Amethyst-Users
 1262 chars 31 May 1981 2043-PDT From: STEF at DARCOM-KA To: FJW at MIT-

Subject: Amethyst-Users
 2077 chars 31 May 1981 23:55-EDT From: Christopher C. Stacy <CSTACY at 

Subject: Recent events, an opinion.
 2208 chars  1 Jun 1981 (Monday) 0004-EDT From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (He

Subject: Recent events, an opinion.
 4727 chars 1 June 1981 00:53-EDT From: Leonard N. Foner <FONER at MIT-A

Subject: PLEASE OMIT MSGGROUP Re: Recent events, an opinion.
 1324 chars 31 May 1981 2237-PDT From: STEF at DARCOM-KA To: FONER at MI

Subject: list
  972 chars 31 May 1981 2331-PDT (Sunday) From: Lauren at UCLA-SECURITY 

Subject: me and this list
  301 chars  1 Jun 1981 1142-EDT From: Roy Marantz <MARANTZ at RUTGERS>
12-Jun-81 22:55:19-PDT,3128;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 2-JUN-81 0944-PDT
Date: 2 Jun 1981 0841-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: MSGGROUP#1611  Message practices and etiquette
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: Msggroup at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 2-Jun-81 08:41:42.WMARTIN>

Hi!  Here's something unusual -- a message actually about
messages going out to msggroup!

Anyway, the situation described below has come up recently, and I
think it could form the basis for a bit of discussion on this
rather inactive list.  What do we owe to correspondents in an
electronic mail exchange?

For example, I have recently been gathering information for
official business regarding several different topics, by means of
the net-wide bulletin board features and also large mailing
lists.  Since I have gleaned this information by means of the
net, from many different respondents, I feel an obligation to
distribute the information I gathered to anyone on the net who
expresses an interest.  Usually, this is merely a matter of
sending inquirers a consolidated composite of the data, or a
compendium of messages which had been sent to me, and the
electronic tools make this a practically effortless action.
However, sometimes difficulties arise.

Just recently, for example, I received a request for information
from someone with the net address format of <name> at MIT-EECS at
MIT-AI.  I recall this particular aaddress format being discussed
as a new and "legal" development.  However, no mailsystem on any
host where I have access will accept it as a valid address.  I
spent quite a bit of expensive time trying to get mail to that
address, and failed.  Not only can I not answer him, but I can't
even tell him why he hasn't heard from me!  This leaves me
feeling badly about the situation, and vaguely guilty, even
though I put in more effort than I would expect anyone to do for
me as an unknown inquirer from the net.  (And probably certainly
more effort than my bosses would want me to expend!)

A similar situation arose in the past few days with an inquiry
from ain individual with the net address format of "CSVAX.<name>
at BERKELEY".  Though I could construct mail to that address with
no difficulty, it won't send.  It "times out" and remains in my
mailbox for days.

Now, I am no system type, and cannot fix whatever bugs in all our
mailsystems cause this situation.  Since our net support is
contracted, we have no internal resources tto do anything like
this, and our support is minimal for real and serious trouble,
even, so I can't get system types to do anything about such
situations.  What I am asking is where does my responsibility
end?  Is there a moral obligation to continue trying and
expending resources in this effort, or should we give it the
normal level of involvement and then cut it off until such time
as the net evolves to support new or unusual features which will
eliminate the problems?

I think Msggroup is an appropriate place to discuss such an
issue, and would like to see some comments through the group.
	
Will Martin
USArmy DARCOM ALMSA
12-Jun-81 22:55:19-PDT,1323;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 2-JUN-81 1448-PDT
Date:  2 June 1981 1311-EDT
From: David.Lamb at CMU-10A
To: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1612  Re: Message practices and etiquette
CC: Msggroup at MIT-MC
Reply-To: David.Lamb at CMU-10A
In-Reply-To:  <[OFFICE-3] 2-Jun-81 08:41:42.WMARTIN>
Message-Id: <02Jun81 131105 RD00@CMU-10A>

This doesn't answer the general case, but the CMU and MIT mail programs
accept addresses of the form X@Y@Z; there are probably others by now.
You might be able to reply by telneting to a site that accepts such
addresses and using their mailer, if they let you send netmail without
logging in.

I once had a case of someone sending me mail and my not being able to
reply, due to his site demanding USER and PASSWORD commands that my
system's mailer didn't know about.  Fortunately his lab had a full
address in the Arpanet directory, so I sent him U.S.  mail; he needed
information about a conference scheduled for two weeks later, so I
figured the extra effort on my part was called for.  Whether I would do
this again would depend how important I thought my answering him was.  I
guess I tend to believe it's the responsibility of system maintainers
to make sure their systems can communicate, and users shouldn't have to
worry about such things.
12-Jun-81 22:55:19-PDT,1171;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 3-JUN-81 1056-PDT
Date: 3 Jun 1981 0852-PDT
Sender: WMARTIN at OFFICE-3
Subject: MSGGROUP#1613  Follow up on message etiquette discussion
From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin)
To: msggroup at MIT-ML
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3] 3-Jun-81 08:52:41.WMARTIN>

Hi again!

I've received a bunch of personal messages regarding techniques
or software versions which would permit me to mail to the address
forms I used as examples in my original message; I guess I wasn't
clear enough about that.  Those were just examples; they are not
the problem.  Let's just assume that I CAN'T mail to those
correspondents, no matter what I do.  (That's why I tried to
emphasize that I wasn't a system type, and have minimal system
support.  We just have to put up with the software as it is, OK?)

What I was hoping to stimulate was discussion about the moral
obligataion to an otherwise unknown net correspondent.  How much
effort does he/she/it deserve, and what do we owe each other in
this community?  Along with that, of course, is the question of
what we should expect from each other.

Discussion on that issue, please?

Will Martin
12-Jun-81 22:55:19-PDT,2711;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 3-JUN-81 1316-PDT
Date:  3 Jun 1981 1544-EDT
From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <Solomon at RUTGERS>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1614  Re: Follow up on message etiquette discussion
To: WMartin at OFFICE-3
cc: msggroup at MIT-ML, Solomon at RUTGERS
In-Reply-To: Your message of 3-Jun-81 1152-EDT

 
	As a  user of  a system  that ALSO  doesnt support  Foo@X@Y  I
believe that it is the systems staff (in particular the system manager
or  the  system  administrator's)  responsibility  to  make  sure  the
software conforms to all of  the latest internet/RFC standards.  Since
foo@x@y is compatible  with RFC733  standards, I don't  see why  every
system manager  who can  get his  hands on  software that  can  handle
RFC733 mail should use it immediately.

	As a system staff member (which  I also am) I find other  more
esoteric reasons for not using the latest software "that comes off the
net"  on  my  system.   Though  I  sort  of  agree  that  we  have   a
responsibility to provide software to allow users to mail to  foo@x@y,
the problem really resides with  DEC not supporting said software  (in
our case, or some other software group or manufacturer in the case  of
other sites). It actually goes deeper  than that.

	Here at Rutgers we  keep things as "vanilla"  as we can  stand
them (especially the EXEC and Monitor).  However we can't really stand
"vanilla", hence when DEC comes out with new releases of this software
we are forced into a situation where we have to work day and night  to
intertwine the  software  we have  written  with that  which  DEC  has
released. There are times when  DEC's new release totally breaks  some
software (such as when  they redefine the  ARPAnet system calls,  e.g.
long leader suppport).  DEC updates the programs they supported (which
don't support foo@x@y constructs), but didn't upgrade the new  network
software. Hence we may be in a position where we can't support the new
features across releases of the  operating system.

	Our system manager  has decided  not to  provide anything  DEC
would not  offer  in  respect  to ARPAnet  software  (and  much  other
software indeed), and I think that decision was a wise one considering
he is very short handed and doesnt like working 30 hour days when  the
new release comes out. This  becomes increasingly more difficult  when
DEC asks  us  to be  a  test site  for  their newest  release  of  the
operating system!!!

	Hmm,  seems  the  users  think   it  is  the  system   staff's
responsibility, and the system staff  thinks it is the  manufacturer's
responsibility, I wonder what the manufacturer's think about all this?

Cheers,
JSol
-------
12-Jun-81 22:55:19-PDT,852;000000000001
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 4-JUN-81 1552-PDT
Date:  4 Jun 1981 1834-EDT
From: Wayne J. Noss <G.WJN at MIT-EECS at MIT-AI>
Reply-to: WJN at MIT-ML
Subject: MSGGROUP#1615  Re: Follow up on message etiquette discussion
To: WMartin at OFFICE-3
cc: msggroup at MIT-ML
In-Reply-To: Your message of 3-Jun-81 1235-EDT

     I think that a significant part of responsibility in getting a
message replied is with the original sender.  The recipient should try,
within reason (loosely defined) to reply (if reply is needed), but only
so much can be done.  The sender should allow for the possibility of his
message not getting through, of being un-replyable, etc.  If he really
wants a reply, he'll follow it up after a suitable delay.  This is the
way it has always been, since long before computers.
				    Happy hacking,
				the WJN
-------
3-Jul-81 14:03:57-PDT,1252;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 23-Jun-81 2120-PDT
Date: 23 Jun 1981 2057-PDT (Tuesday)
From: Lauren at UCLA-SECURITY (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1616  TWX/Telex
To: MSGGROUP at ML

I would very much appreciate any info regarding "advanced" TWX/Telex
services currently available or planned for the near future.  By
"advanced", I mean systems that allow users to enter and receive
messages via various routes (TWX/Telex/DDD) and have them stored
for immediate or later delivery to the destinations.  Such services
would also have facilities for storing messages, delayed delivery,
multiple delivery, and the like.

I have heard of a company called "Unitel" offering something like
this for International Telex service -- anyone know anything about
them or their service?  Does anybody else offer such things, or
plan to?

One more thing: am I correct in assuming that in the U.S., you
choose TWX if you plan to mostly generate/receive domestic traffic
and Telex if international messages are your primary concern?
Outside of the issues of Baudot vs. ASCII and the like, I have always
been a bit confused by the existence of the two similar networks side by
side.

Thanks very much.

--Lauren--
-------


3-Jul-81 14:03:57-PDT,1509;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 30-Jun-81 2033-PDT
Date:  30 June 1981 23:08 edt
From:  Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-Multics
Subject: MSGGROUP#1617  Change of name
Sender:  COMSAT.SoftArts at MIT-Multics
Reply-To:  Frankston at MIT-Multics (Bob Frankston)
To:  header-people at MIT-AI, msggroup at MIT-AI
From: Frankston at MIT-Multics (Bob Frankston)
Local:  header-people at mit-ai,cc:msggroup at mit-ai

I am sending this to the entire list instead of just the
"-request" identity.  I'd like to change the current entry for
me on Multics from whatever it is (SALawrence.SoftArts or
sal.sai or maybe Frankston or bob or rmf or ...) to
header-list.SoftArts and msggroup-list.SoftArts as appropriate.

Instead of being
     Frankston at misc.SoftArts at MIT-Multics
I will get the mail via
     header-list.SoftArts at MIT-Multics
which will be examined by a program that will do local
redistribution.

the reason is that the "at .. at" syntax is fine by itself, but
since the information is not preserved in the letter itself,
but only the FTP "envelope" the syntax is only usable by those
who modify their operating systems.  This is not fair and
unnecessary.  We need to add the "envelope-to" field that
contains the same information as the address for FTP.  That is
the field that can be used by mail processing programs.  The
"to:" field and such are only used for mail preparation and
presentation programs.

I realize that "envelope-to" is ugly.  Suggestions?


3-Jul-81 14:03:58-PDT,1332;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-3 rcvd at 3-Jul-81 0059-PDT
Date: 2 Jul 1981 1129-PDT
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1618  RFC 782 Available and Accessible !
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF] 2-Jul-81 11:29:54.WESTINE>

Well there was a minor glitch in the move on the NIC from SRI-KL
to its own machine -- SRI-NIC.  The way to access RFC was changed
a tiny bit and i forgot to correct the notice.  The new procedure
is to use the FTP username ANONYMOUS and GUEST.


      A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in 
      the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

      RFC 782:

         Title:   A Virtual Terminal Management Model
         Author:  J. Nabielsky & A. Skelton
         Pages :  20

            pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC782.TXT

         Discusses the architecture of virtual terminal in light of 
         recent advances in terminal characteristics, especially 
         focusing on the management aspects.  Timely comments are 
         requested by the authors for input to international standards 
         proceedings.

      Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at 
      SRI-NIC via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

      --jon.

6-Jul-81 02:36:53-PDT,5863;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host UDEL rcvd at 3-Jul-81 1827-PDT
Date: 3 Jul 81 21:10-EDT (Fri)
From: The.CSNET.Management.Committee
Subject: MSGGROUP#1619  The First CSNET Report
Sender: Dave Farber <Farber@UDel>
To: msggroup at Usc-Ecl
Message-ID: <81183.76211.2400 @ UDel>



	    CSNET--the Computer Science Research Network



    CSNET PROJECT REPORT-1

    June 23,1981

	 The  CSNET  Management  Committee  has  initiated  this
    report  series to provide liaisons and other interested par-
    ties with periodic CSNET status information.

	 Organizations wishing to receive these  reports  should
    send a request to:

		 CSNET Administrative Center
		 Computer Science Dept.
		 Univ. of Wisconsin
		 1210 W. Dayton St.
		 Madison, WI 53706


    Status of CSNET Contracts

	 NSF has awarded contracts for CSNET development to  the
    University  of Wisconsin-Madison (Public Host/Service Host),
    the  University  of  Delaware  and  The   Rand   Corporation
    (PhoneNet),  and  Purdue  University (Protocol Development).
    Principal contacts at these sites are: Delaware - D. Farber,
    Rand  -  A.  Hearn,  Purdue  -  D. Comer and P. Denning, and
    Wisconsin - L. Landweber and  M. Solomon.

    CSNET Equipment Status

	 Equipment ordered includes four DEC VAX  11/750's,  one
    for  each  of the PhoneNet relays (Delaware and Rand), and a
    dual-processor  system  for  the  Public  Host/Service  Host
    (Wisconsin).  Delivery is scheduled for October.  These sys-
    tems will run the Berkeley VAX UNIX operating system.  Asso-
    ciated   Computer   Consultants  IF-11/X.25's  will  provide
    front-end X.25 support for CSNET VAX and PDP11  systems  for
    connection   to  Telenet.   The  first  IF-11/X.25  will  be
    delivered to Purdue this summer.

    ArpaNet Connections

	 Delaware, Purdue, and Wisconsin will  be  connected  to
    ArpaNet  by  September,  with  initial  service at 9.6K bps.
    Telenet connections at 9.6K bps  for  Purdue  and  Wisconsin
    will  be  installed  this summer.  Delaware and Rand connec-
    tions at 1.2K bps have been ordered for January 1982.

    Application for CSNET access

	 The Management Committee is  distributing  applications
    for  PhoneNet and Public Host test-site status.  Information



			    July 1, 1981

			       - 2 -


    on criteria for selection accompanies the application  form.
    Applications  should  be returned as soon as possible to the
    CSNET Administrative Center.

    CSNET CIC Status

	 The Organization Support Group met in  May  to  provide
    NSF  with  advice on the Coordination and Information Center
    (CIC).  NSF will  soon  distribute  a  program  announcement
    requesting proposals for developing the CIC.

    Technical Support Group

	 The Technical Support Group will meet in July to review
    CSNET  technical  plans.   Important  areas  to be discussed
    include naming and routing conventions.

    Policy Support Group

	 The Policy Support Group will meet in  July  to  review
    the full range of CSNET-related issues.

    Software Support Activites

	 The NSF-funded  CSNET  project  will  support  software
    development for DEC VAX and PDP11 computers running Berkeley
    VAX UNIX and Bell V7 UNIX respectively.  It is expected that
    software for other systems will be developed via cooperative
    university - industry projects to be funded by the vendors.

    CSNET Protocol Standards

	 The CSNET protocol architecture for host -  to  -  host
    communication is X.25 < IP < TCP < application-protocol (A <
    B means that protocol B is above protocol A in the  protocol
    architecture).   Terminal  access via Telenet to CSNET hosts
    will utilize X.25 < X.28-X.29.

    PhoneNet Status

	 PhoneNet software has been installed on    VAX  11/780s
    at  Wisconsin  and  Purdue which are being polled on a daily
    basis by an interim PDP 11/70 PhoneNet  Relay  at  Delaware.
    Rand  is  currently  working on a UUCP channel for PhoneNet.
    Wisconsin is completing implementation of a PhoneNet  inter-
    face  for  the  Berkeley  VAX  UNIX  user-level mail system.
    Delaware is coordinating these  efforts,  providing  mainte-
    nance, implementing software enhancements, and beginning the
    design of a Pascal PhoneNet package.

    Public Host Status

	 Current  work  includes   specification   of   software
    required  to utilize this dual processor system effectively.



			    July 1, 1981


			       - 3 -


    Requirements for the CSNET nameserver are  also  being  stu-
    died.   Four temporary, asynchronous Telenet lines have been
    installed to the Computer Science Dept. VAX 11/780 to facil-
    itate testing.

    Protocol Development Update

	 This summer, Purdue will  receive  a  test  version  of
    Berkeley  VAX UNIX with BBN's TCP/IP implementation.  Purdue
    will develop software to interface IP to the ACC X.25  level
    3  software.   In addition, Purdue will provide an X.29 user
    PAD to allow incoming calls to CSNET VAX hosts  via  Telenet
    public access ports.  A later project for PDP11 V7 UNIX will
    use the Purdue software  together  with  a  suitable  TCP/IP
    implementation.  TCP/IP  alternatives  for PDP11's are being
    evaluated.

	 This report was prepared by L.H.Landweber for the CSNET
    Management Committee.  Contact any of the Management Commit-
    tee members listed below for further information.

		 Dave Farber (Delaware) - 302 738-1163 - Farber at Udel
		 Tony Hearn (Rand) - 213 393-0411 - Hearn at Rand-Ai
		 Bell Kern (NSF) - 202 357-9507 - Kern at Rand-Ai
		 Larry Landweber (Wisconsin) - 608 262-1204 - lhl.uwisc at Udel


8-Jul-81 14:58:34-PDT,3162;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Jul-81 0045-PDT
Date: 8 July 1981 03:13-EDT
From: Richard S. Shuford <SHUFOR at MIT-AI>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1620  US Postal Service Electronic Mail
To: HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI
cc: SHUFOR at MIT-AI

:
   The United States Postal Service has proposed
interface specifications for Electronic Computer-Originated Mail
(ECOM).  There was an article published in the June 29, 1981
issue of COMPUTERWORLD (page 6) that gives some details of the proposal.
   Also, the Postal Service published an announcement in the
June 19, 1981 issue of the fEDERAl REGISTER
(page 32111) of a public meeting for questions and comments on the
system.  The public meeting was held on June 29
in the Postal Service headquarters in Washington, DC.
    It seems that there was no press coverage of the meeting
announcement; therefore only "professional Federal Register readers"
knew of the meeting.  The meeting was therefore attended
only by representatives of large corporations that have some
economic interest in what the Postal Service does with
electronic mail.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
   Many of you are now shaking your heads and saying "That's just
what we should expect." And to some extent, you are correct.
But wait!  If you are  feeling deprived of the
opportunity to guide the USPS into adopting electronic-mail
standards more to your liking, there is yet a chance.
   Last Thursday (July 2, 1981), I received
a telephoone call from Lloyd Krause of SRI International
(not an ARPAnet user), who told me that he is working
as a consultant for the Postal Service.  He feels very
strongly that comments on the proposed system should come from
a wider variety of "stake-holders" (as he calls them)
in the future use of electronic mail.  In particular, he would like
to hear comments from personal computer users and others who are
not interested in electronic mail from a purely commercial point
of view.
 
    The deadline for comments, according to the Federal Register
article, is JULy 23, 1981.  Comments should be addressed to:
'
'            Charles Shaw
'            Director, Office of Electronic-Mail Systems Development
'            Postal Service Research and Development Laboratory
'            11711 Parklawn Drive
'            Rockville, Maryland  20852
'
'            (301) 443-6255
'
    Mr. Krause sounds like a decent-enough fellow.  He emphasized
to me that his opinion on "including more stake-holders" is held
as a private citizen, and is NOT his official
opinion as a consultant to the  Postal Service.  As a courtesty
to Mr. Krause, I suspect it would be better not to mention
him in communicating
your comments to the Postal Service.
    If you would like to contact Mr. Krause, let me know and I
shall send you his address and telephone number, 
which I hesitate to put in this message.
'
   You will probably want to go to a nearby library and read
both the FEDERAL REGISTER article and the
COMPUTERWORLD article before composing any sort of comments.
'
'                            Richard Shuford <SHUFOR at MIT-AI>


8-Jul-81 14:58:35-PDT,821;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Jul-81 1020-PDT
Date:  8 Jul 1981 0523-PDT
From: Geoffrey C Mulligan (at The Pentagon) <GeoffM at RAND-AI>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1621  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
To: SHUFOR at MIT-AI
cc: HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI
In-Reply-To: Your message of 8-Jul-81 0013-PDT

After reading the short blurb on the Electronic mail service, I began to
think about my present mail service, which is slow and expensive.  Has
anyone ever considered letting commercial companies advertise on stamps.
Let all these commercial firms pay for shipping our mail.  The get a new
form of advertisement and we get free postage.  Who knows maybe we will
end up with postage stamps the size of post cards, with a picture of
DECs new 2080 system on it.

	geoff
-------


8-Jul-81 14:58:35-PDT,551;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Jul-81 1052-PDT
Date:  8 Jul 1981 at 0917-PDT
To: Richard S Shuford <SHUFOR@MIT-AI>
Cc: HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI
Subject: MSGGROUP#1622  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
In-reply-to: Your message of 8 July 1981 03:13-EDT.
From: pickens at SRI-Unix

In a message which is sent to 100+ institutions, 200+ individuals, and
spanning both North America and Europe (5 million square miles?), the
suggestion to keep an individual's name in confidence seems a bit
incongruous.




8-Jul-81 20:45:11-PDT,509;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Jul-81 1525-PDT
Date: 8 July 1981 18:13-EDT
From: Steve Kudlak <FFM at MIT-MC>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1623  US Postal Service Electronic Mail
To: pickens at SRI-UNIX
cc: HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI, SHUFOR at MIT-AI

ACTUALLY THATS NOT TOO UNREASONABLE TO BELIEVE. We all know the
Arpanet is another world and I assume a very high percentage of us
are nice enuff to hold someone's name in confidence if they requested
it.

Have fun
Sends Steve

8-Jul-81 20:45:11-PDT,508;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Jul-81 1545-PDT
Date:  8 Jul 1981 1515-PDT
From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1624  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
To:   GeoffM at RAND-AI, SHUFOR at MIT-AI
cc:   HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI, POSTEL

In response to the message sent 8 Jul 1981 0523-PDT from GeoffM@RAND-AI

Yes, it has been thought of before, and for some interesting reaction
try  suggesting your plab in a stamp collectors meeting or store.

--jon.
-------
8-Jul-81 20:45:11-PDT,1884;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Jul-81 1712-PDT
Date: 8 Jul 1981 1634-PDT
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1625  The.CSNET.Management.Committee: MSGGROUP#1619
Subject:                The First CSNET Report
From: STEF at DARCOM-KA
To: "[ECL]<MSGGROUP>MAIL.LST;54":
Cc: "[ka]<STEF>UNIX-CPM.LST;7":
Message-ID: <[DARCOM-KA] 8-Jul-81 16:34:23.STEF>

This item has also appeared in Human-Nets, and possibly in other group
mailing lists.  If you have not received a copy, and want one, you can
access it via FTP from [ECL]<MSGGROUP>MSGGROUP.1619;1 or I will remail a
copy to you on request to STEF@DARCOM-KA, or to MSGGROUP@ECL.

Best - Stef
	
Begin forwarded excerpt
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5863 chars

Subject: MSGGROUP#1619  The First CSNET Report

Date: 3 Jul 81 21:10-EDT (Fri)
From: The.CSNET.Management.Committee - Sender: Dave Farber <Farber@UDel>
To: msggroup at Usc-Ecl


	    CSNET--the Computer Science Research Network



    CSNET PROJECT REPORT-1

    June 23,1981

	 The  CSNET  Management  Committee  has  initiated  this
    report  series to provide liaisons and other interested par-
    ties with periodic CSNET status information.

	 Organizations wishing to receive these  reports  should
    send a request to:

		 CSNET Administrative Center
		 Computer Science Dept.
		 Univ. of Wisconsin
		 1210 W. Dayton St.
		 Madison, WI 53706

[Report Body Omitted - Stef]

	 This report was prepared by L.H.Landweber for the CSNET
    Management Committee.  Contact any of the Management Commit-
    tee members listed below for further information.

	 Dave Farber (Delaware) - 302 738-1163 - Farber at Udel
	 Tony Hearn (Rand) - 213 393-0411 - Hearn at Rand-Ai
	 Bell Kern (NSF) - 202 357-9507 - Kern at Rand-Ai
	 Larry Landweber (Wisconsin) - 608 262-1204 - lhl.uwisc at Udel

8-Jul-81 20:45:12-PDT,1627;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Jul-81 1851-PDT
Date:  8 Jul 1981 2124-EDT
From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at RUTGERS>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1626  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
To: SHUFOR at MIT-AI
cc: HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI, JSol at RUTGERS
In-Reply-To: Your message of 8-Jul-81 0313-EDT

	I've always wondered why someone hadn't thought of making it
possible for me to send and receive Snail Mail on some network.
Clearly in any human engineered network environment some provision has
to be made to communicate with those hard-nosed radicals who refuse to
deal with modern technology. There will always be people who can't,
don't or won't deal with computers, for whatever reason.

	Gee, I can think of many letters I WOULD have written, but
forgot to, solely because I couldn't do it on the computer. I have
batch jobs to do just about everything... Why not a batch job to send
mail to all my relatives on their birthday's (CC: me a copy of it of
course).

	Hmm, here I am in a world where I can pick up my telephone and
call any FTD Florist, send off some flowers to someone whom I know,
and have them charge it to my credit card. The florist simply keys the
information into their "network" and the local "host" shop delivers it
to me. The bill goes automatically from the FTD billing computer to
Master Charge, automatically.

	Next step: A method of having Snail Mail sent to you via
computer mail (from a central point or many regional points), perhaps
a letter writing protocol which can be read by the computer??

and a ACK NAK to you too...
-------
8-Jul-81 20:45:12-PDT,1848;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Jul-81 1931-PDT
Date:  8 Jul 1981 1857-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1627  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
To:   JSol at RUTGERS, SHUFOR at MIT-AI
cc:   HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI, ZELLICH

In response to the message sent 8 Jul 1981 2124-EDT from JSol@RUTGERS

Well, there *are* some systems that at least have the hooks for
sending postal mail and telegrams.  I think a couple of them even
implement the postal mail (one of the systems I use implements the
part where the mail goes to a printer queue, but that queue is no
longer served by a printer, and they never *did* implement the
operating procedure of having someone stuff the printed output into an
envelope and sticking postage on it).

There are already protocols available (including a way to get an
account) to interface with Western Union and TWX, and it looks like
the Post Awful will finally come up with their initial offering of
electronic mail.  I don't see any reason why almost all of our ARPANET
mail systems can't implement those interfaces.  The issue of someone
having time to design and code the interfaces aside, probably the
biggie issue is an administrative one of how to charge for the
postage, telegram charges, etc.  Especially if somebody does something
like editing a TWX address onto one of the MIT mailing-lists! (other
than someone *at* MIT, of course)

I don't think you're going to solve the incoming-mail problem,
though, unless your organization has one of the super-expensive
will-read-any-font optical readers (or you can set up an official
experiment, like they did at NSF, and require that all incoming
paper gets typed online by the clerical staff - they were trying
out an all-paperless, online, office).

-Rich
-------
8-Jul-81 20:45:12-PDT,902;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Jul-81 1950-PDT
Date: 8 Jul 1981 1929-PDT
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: MSGGROUP#1628  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL
To: Zellich at OFFICE-3
Cc: JSol at RUTGERS, SHUFOR at MIT-AI, HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, 
Cc: MSGGROUP at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL] 8-Jul-81 19:29:41.GEOFF>
In-Reply-To: Your message of  8 Jul 1981 1857-PDT

I REFUSE TO USE ANY SYSTEM THAT WOULD INTERFACE TO THE US MAIL
SYSTEM AND WOULD CAUSE MY CORRESPONDENCE WHICH I ENTERED IN MIXED
CASE TO BE TRANSMITTED IN ALL UPPERS, and looked like it was
printed on a Model 35 TTY with sprocket feed holes down both
sides.

To my knowledge, this is currently what is available today with
the systems that interface to MAILGRAM and other such things
which haven't `invented' lower case yet.

-------
28-Aug-81 13:21:37-PDT,893;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 13-Jul-81 2153-PDT
Date: 13 Jul 1981 1911-PDT
From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1629  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
To:   JSol at RUTGERS, SHUFOR at MIT-AI
cc:   HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI, POSTEL

In response to the message sent   8 Jul 1981 2124-EDT from JSol@RUTGERS


Actually the Network Information Center (NIC) on the ARPANET did
implement an interface to the US Mail for some time (1970 thru 1974 i
think).  When some one sent an RFC or just a private note copies were
sent to people that had online mailboxes online, and people without
mailboxes in hardcopy via US Mail.  The hardcopy was printed on the NIC
line printer and some folded it, it put postage on it, and dumped it
into the US Mail.  This was all terminated due to the cost, and the
spread of online mailboxes.

--jon.
-------


28-Aug-81 13:21:37-PDT,1667;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-3 rcvd at 18-Jul-81 1254-PDT
Date: 16 Jul 1981 1432-PDT
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1630  RFCs 783, 784, 785, 786 Available
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]16-Jul-81 14:32:23.WESTINE>

New RFCs are now available from the Network Information Center in the 
NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

RFC 783:

   Title:   The TFTP Protocol (Revision 2) 
   Author:  K. R. Sollins
   Pages :  18

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC783.TXT

   Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) is a simple block at a time 
   file transfer procedure based on the User Datagram Protocol and 
   Internet Protocol.

RFC 784:

   Title:   Mail Transfer Protocol:  ISI Tops20 Implementation 
   Author:  S. Sluizer and J. Postel
   Pages :  3

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC784.TXT

   This describes the ISI Tops20 implementation of MTP.

RFC 785:

   Title:   Mail Transfer Protocol:  ISI Tops20 File Definitions 
   Author:  S. Sluizer and J. Postel
   Pages :  3

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC785.TXT

   This describes use of files in the ISI Tops20 implementation of MTP.

RFC 786:

   Title:   Mail Transfer Protocol:  ISI Tops20 MTP-NIMAIL              
   Interface 
   Author:  S. Sluizer and J. Postel
   Pages :  3

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC786.TXT

   This describes use of files in the ISI Tops20 implementation of the 
   MTP-NIMAIL interface.

Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC 
via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

--jon.

28-Aug-81 13:21:38-PDT,1149;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 18-Jul-81 2042-PDT
Date: 18 July 1981 23:25-EDT
From: Richard S. Shuford <SHUFOR at MIT-AI>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1631  Lloyd Krause at SRI
To: HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI

Thank you all for your comments on USPS ECOM.
An inquiry by Ron Newman <Newman.ES at PARC-MAXC has determined
that Lloyd Krause (the Postal Service's consultant at SRI)
does in fact have an electronic-mail mailbox
accessible from ARPANET.  You may send your comments to him at
;
;        KRAUSE at SRI-KL
;
He will have them printed and will pass them along to the 
proper people at the Postal Service.  Please keep in mind that
any comments passed along in such manner are officially regarded as
"informal" comments.  If you wish to register an "official" 
opinion, you must use traditional means.  (Let's hope the
postal workers don't go on strike.)
July 23, 1981 is the official deadline, but they might look at
something that comes in the next day or so.
Congratulations to those of you who endured reading
the entire "Federal Register" article.
;
;Cheers............Richard <SHUFOR at MIT-AI>


28-Aug-81 13:21:38-PDT,477;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 23-Jul-81 0649-PDT
Date: 23 July 1981 01:39-EDT
From: Richard S. Shuford <SHUFOR at MIT-AI>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1632  US Postal Service ECOM
To: HUMAN-NETS at MIT-AI, MSGGROUP at MIT-AI
cc: Krause at SRI-KL

The deadline for submission of comments on the proposed
ECOM (electronic computer-originated mail) service has been extended
past the original date of July 23, 1981.
 
The new deadline is August 3, 1981 at 10:00 AM.


28-Aug-81 13:21:38-PDT,1014;000000000001    
Mail-from: USC-ISIF rcvd at 23-Jul-81 1353-PDT
Date: 23 Jul 1981 0941-PDT
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1633  RFC787 Now Available
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]23-Jul-81 09:41:33.WESTINE>

A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in the 
NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

RFC 787:

   Title:   Connectionless Data Transmission Survey/Tutorial
   Author:  A. Lyman Chapin
   Pages :  41

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC787.TXT

   Connectionless Data Transmission is better known in the ARPA 
   community as Datagrams.  The international standards organizations 
   are now beginning to consider datagram based communication and it's 
   place in the protocol architecture.  This memo will be the basis for 
   proposals to ANSI and ISO.  

Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC 
via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

--jon.

28-Aug-81 13:21:38-PDT,1092;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-3 rcvd at 9-Aug-81 2103-PDT
Date: 5 Aug 1981 0946-PDT
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1634  RFC789 Now Available
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF] 5-Aug-81 09:46:27.WESTINE>

One RFC Announcement

   A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in the
   NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

   RFC 789:

      Title:   Vulnerabilities of Newtwork Control Protocols:  An       
      Example
      Author:  Eric C. Rosen
      Pages :  15

         pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC789.TXT

      This memo is a full and clear discussion of what went wrong with 
      the ARPANET on 27 October 1980, and how the problem was found and 
      corrected.  Several important points are made about the design of 
      large distributed systems for robust operation and recovery from 
      failure.

   Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at 
   SRI-NIC via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

   --jon.

28-Aug-81 13:21:38-PDT,2150;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Aug-81 0903-PDT
Date: 28 Aug 1981 1120-EDT
From: Larry Campbell <LCAMPBELL at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Subject: MSGGROUP#1635  Standards vs. practices
Message-ID: <"MS5(1734)+GLXLIB1(1033)" 11755753035.20.71.16863 at DEC-MARLBORO>

I am in a quandary over what to do about "Message-ID" and
"In-reply-to" fields.  RFC733 seems to indicate that a mailsystem,
when generating a reply, should copy the contents of the "Message-ID"
field of the message being replied to into the "In-reply-to" field.
This is presumably to make it easy for mailsystems to automatically
locate the original to a reply you've received, or to collect related
sequences of messages together.  However, it appears that very few
mailsystems on the ARPANET actually do this.  Most of them generate
"In-reply-to" fields like:

	In-reply-to: Message from Jobe Blow of 1-Apr-84

I recently added code to a mailsystem I'm hacking to automatically
trace originals to replies.  I needed to include the "Message-ID" of
the original in replies, but didn't want to incompatibly change
the behavior of "In-reply-to" (every time I incompatibly change the
mailsystem, hordes of wildeyed people with weapons invade my office).
So I invented a new field, "Reference", which behaves the way RFC733
says "In-reply-to" ought to.

I don't like this solution.  After much thought, I've decided that the
"right" thing to do is to adhere to the standard, even if this means
an incompatible change.  However, the current de facto interpretation
of "In-reply-to" is also useful; I really appreciate being told the
name of the human who sent the original message whose reply I'm
reading.

It would appear that we need to invent a new header name for just this
purpose.  I thus have two questions:

1) What should the new header name be?  "Re"?  "In-regard-to"?
   etc.  (Or do we need one at all?  Is all this off the wall?)

2) Is it deemed desirable to change the mailsystems that
   violate the standard so that they generate "In-reply-to"
   fields which conform to the spirit of RFC733?
   --------

28-Aug-81 13:21:39-PDT,1141;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Aug-81 1105-PDT
Date: 28 Aug 1981 1034-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1636  Re: Standards vs. practices
To:   LCAMPBELL at DEC-MARLBORO, MsgGroup at MIT-ML
cc:   ZELLICH

In response to message sent 28 Aug 1981 1120-EDT from LCAMPBELL@DEC-MARLBORO

Or perhaps the In-Reply-To field could contain *both* entries; probably
the usual "...message from etc..." first, then the originators
Message-Id.  In whichever order they appeared, they would be separated
by a CRLF and LWSP to make them readable.

EX:
In-Reply-To:  The message from Jobe Blow 1-Apr-81
  <[ORIGHOST]1-Apr-1981 01:01:01 JBLOW>

I don't have a copy of RFC733 here with me, so I don't remember how
explicit it is about the content of the In-Reply-To field; it might
need changing to allow the above.  If we want to change RFC733 to
allow this kind of formating, I think I would prefer the format as
shown, with the copied Message-Id second, since some mailsystems don't
necessarily generate an Id, but the sender and date/time sent should
always be known.

-Rich Z.
-------

12-Sep-81 16:30:39-PDT,1011;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Aug-81 1434-PDT
Date: Friday, 28 Aug 1981 13:49-PDT
To: Larry Campbell <LCAMPBELL at DEC-MARLBORO>
Cc: MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Subject: MSGGROUP#1637  Re: Standards vs. practices
In-reply-to: Your message of 28 Aug 1981 1120-EDT.
     <"MS5(1734)+GLXLIB1(1033)" 11755753035.20.71.16863 at DEC-MARLBORO>
From: greep at RAND-UNIX

Since angle brackets are used to indicate text designed mainly for
program (rather than human) use, I thought the idea was that you could
put anything you wanted in the in-reply-to field, with the original
message id inside angle brackets, e.g.
   In-reply-to: Message from foo at bar <314159 at BAR>

RFC 733 says (section IV.B.2, page 22) about the in-reply-to field:
"The contents of this field identify previous correspondence which
this message answers.  Note that if message identifiers are used
in this field, they must use the mach-id specification format."  (The
latter is something of the form "string at host".)

12-Sep-81 16:30:39-PDT,1015;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Aug-81 1501-PDT
Date: 28 Aug 1981 (Friday) 1734-EDT
From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1638  Suggestion(s) for RFC999, improvement to RFC733
To:   MsgGroup at MIT-ML

I would tend to think an invisible field [somewhat akin to the 0000000's
in the header of the message] containing the unique identifier should 
be proposed.

Instead of seeing that hacker-created-prime number, a 'user' oriented
In Reply to |Message Header| of |Message Date| be printed. In fact,
almost anything within cognitive reason should be there.

The point of the message is, one should display only the information
that is relevant to a given message. The sender, the reciever(s), the
date and time, and some additional fields, where appropriate.  I do not
think the Message Id is appropriate.  The less one has to dig through a
message, the better.  In fact, one must dig through the context of a
message to gleen its meaning(s).

Henry Dreifus


12-Sep-81 16:30:39-PDT,783;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Aug-81 1534-PDT
Date: Friday, 28 Aug 1981 14:55-PDT
To: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (Henry Dreifus)
Cc: MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Subject: MSGGROUP#1639  Re: Suggestion(s) for RFC999, improvement to RFC733
In-reply-to: Your message of 28 Aug 1981 (Friday) 1734-EDT.
From: greep at RAND-UNIX

What do you mean by "invisible" field?  Re "the 0000000's in the
header", what are you talking about?  In general, the mail reading
program should filter out, at the user's discretion, whatever he doesn't
want to see.  There is no law saying that the program that displays mail
has to show the whole message exactly as it was transmitted - it should
be able to skip over fields the user isn't interested in, move them to
the bottom, or whatever.

12-Sep-81 16:30:40-PDT,1156;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Aug-81 1623-PDT
Date: 28 Aug 1981 1550-PDT
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: MSGGROUP#1640  Re: Standards vs. practices
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL
To: Zellich at OFFICE-3
Cc: LCAMPBELL at DEC-MARLBORO, MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL]28-Aug-81 15:50:26.GEOFF>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 28 Aug 1981 1034-PDT

I on the other hand I  either like getting
	
In-Reply-To: Your message of 28 Aug 1981 1034-PDT
  or
In-Reply-To: The message from Zellich at Office-3 at 28 Aug 1981 1034-PDT
  or
In-Reply-To: <[Office-3]28-Aug-81 10:34:00-PDT>

but what I don't like getting is what the RAND-MH and PARC-Laurel
message systems send out which, on the first line give you the 
"Your message of.." or "The message from..." AND then on the second
line put the "machine type" Message-Id or even worse, split the "Machine
Type" message id in the middle of the first line onto the second.

In essence: One or the other, but please NOT both!

I also think this topic would be more appropriate for HEADER-PEOPLE,
the list where RFC733 was reviewed.

12-Sep-81 16:30:40-PDT,789;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 28-Aug-81 1651-PDT
Date: 28 Aug 1981 1628-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1641  Re: Standards vs. practices
To:   Geoff at SRI-CSL, Zellich at OFFICE-3
cc:   LCAMPBELL at DEC-MARLBORO, MsgGroup at MIT-ML, ZELLICH

In response to the message sent 28 Aug 1981 1550-PDT from Geoff at SRI-CSL

I agree with Geoff about the subject being [more] appropriate for
Header-People and have taken the liberty of forwarding the collected
correspondence to date to that list.  It might be a good idea for anyone
concerned with this subject to start sending to Header-People instead
of MsgGroup or at least CCing Header-People (but an awful lot of us
will get two copies of everything, then).
Cheers,
Rich
-------

12-Sep-81 16:30:40-PDT,967;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 11-Sep-81 1324-PDT
Date: 10 September 1981 2219-PDT (Thursday)
From: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1642  changing headers
To: MSGGROUP at MC, HEADER-PEOPLE at MC

Hi.  What is the current feeling regarding the local reformatting of
message headers by delivery software BEFORE delivery to destinations?

Example:  Presume there is a "smart" FTP server which, before 
delivering any incoming network mail, reformats the FROM, CC, and DATE
lines to a local standard to simplify later mail handling.

Considering the current state of the various mail handling systems
around the net, are there currently any problems that could be caused or
increased in severity through this sort of manipulation?  Is there still
any strong reason to maintain the philosophy that received message
headers "should" look the same when received as they did when sent?

Thanks much.

--Lauren--


12-Sep-81 16:30:40-PDT,763;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 11-Sep-81 1338-PDT
Date: 11-Sep-81  8:18:33 PDT (Friday)
From: Karlton at PARC-MAXC
Subject: MSGGROUP#1643  Re: changing headers
In-reply-to: Lauren's message of 10 September 1981 2219-PDT (Thursday)
To: lauren at UCLA-Security (Lauren Weinstein)
cc: MSGGROUP at MC, HEADER-PEOPLE at MC

There is no "philosophy that received messageheaders 'should' look the
same when received as they did when sent." Some mail handling systems
tailor the display of the headers (usually by some sort of user settable
profile). I think that it would be a mistake for any FTP server to throw
away some of the information in a header. There might be something in
there that the user really wants one time in a thousand.

PK

12-Sep-81 16:30:40-PDT,978;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 11-Sep-81 1358-PDT
Date: 11 Sep 1981 1011-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1644  Changing Headers - likely to be the norm
To:   MsgGroup at MIT-MC

I think the idea is that reformatting of message headers (and possibly
the message bodies) will not only be allowed, but expected, in the
coming internet environment.  It is not reasonable to expect all local
nets, worldwide, to conform to the DoD or NBS standards for transport
formats.

The only consideration on reformatting might be for those systems that
accept delivery, then later return the message with a "sorry, I can't
find anybody like this locally".  In such a case, the original format
should obviously be returned so the sending system can properly
recognize it (although, in all practicality, it will likely devolve
upon a human sender/reader to match up the undeliverable message and
take action on it).

 -Rich
-------

12-Sep-81 16:30:40-PDT,928;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 11-Sep-81 1401-PDT
Date: 11 Sep 1981 1412-EDT
Sender: JWALKER at BBNA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1645  Reformatting
From: JWALKER at BBNA
To: MsgGroup at MC
Message-ID: <[BBNA]11-Sep-81 14:12:31.JWALKER>

In the future, the division of messages into headers and text is
going to disappear in favor of a more fully differentiated format
(like NBS).  At that point, one would expect to see systems where
each component of a message contains information indicating
"Don't reformat ever" "Reformat if you want", "Reformat but only
according to the XYZ conventions".

No message system being built now should be assuming that it can
treat all "headers" the same way.  Even now, people are talking
about passing procedures in headers, to form messages that "run
themselves" when they get there.  Reformatting headers on the
assumption that all contain free text seems pretty risky.

12-Sep-81 16:30:40-PDT,3231;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 11-Sep-81 1505-PDT
Date: 11 Sep 1981 1713-EDT
Sender: DDEUTSCH at BBNA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1646  Reformatting messages
From: DDEUTSCH at BBNA
To: MsgGroup at MIT-MC
Cc: DDeutsch
Message-ID: <[BBNA]11-Sep-81 17:13:59.DDEUTSCH>

I think that there's an important distinction that must be made here.
Messages contain two components, content and presentation.  The
content is the information you want to communicate; the presentation
is how you want the data to "look" when it is examined.  RFC 733 does
not allow the two to be separated.  That is at the core of Lauren's
problem.

When reformatting a message, both the content and presentation
information must be preserved, or there will be a loss of data.  The
transformation of a message from one underlying data representation
scheme to another can be done without loss of data.  This requires
that the "new" format meet or exceed the ability of the "old" format
to express both content and presentation.  For example, an RFC 733
message can be transformed into an NBS-style message without any
problems.  I quite agree with Rich -- it is reasonable to expect that
people will use private formats for messages inside their own systems,
while accepting and sending "standard" messages when dealing with the
outside world.

It looks like Lauren has found that RFC 733 messages are not
sufficiently or conveniently structured for whatever processing he'd
like to do.  I'm guessing that his system works with some kind of
extended RFC 733 format in order to get around this problem.  It seems
like he is talking about doing things like changing the form of dates
or addresses, eliminating or adding fields, etc.  Unfortunately,
Lauren may get more (or less) than he is bargaining for.

If Lauren discards or adds some fields, then he will be losing part of
the content information.  However, the kind of processing which he may
be considering also involves the loss of presentation information.
For example, consider the subtle change in tone when the date "Friday,
11 September 1981" gets transformed into "81-9-11" or vice versa.  The
person who reads the reformatted message understands the same the
date, but doesn't get to know how the message's author wanted it to
look.  In most cases this kind of change doesn't matter, but when it
is important, there is no way to go back, given that the "smart"
FTPserver didn't keep the original message around.  I think that doing
this may create more problems than it solves.

The root of the problem is that there is no way to preserve the
presentation information in Lauren's transformation.  This is because
RFC 733 does not differentiate between the content and presentation
information in a message.  If you change the structure of an RFC 733
message, you also change its presentation.

If the format used for representing messages is inadequate, the thing
to do is to get a better format, whether by extending the current one
or adopting something new.  Let's not forget that both content and
presentation information are essential to the meaning of a message.
Shortchanging one in favor of the other is a no-win situation.

Debbie

12-Sep-81 16:30:40-PDT,2070;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 12-Sep-81 1550-PDT
Date: 12 Sep 1981 1056-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1647  More on reformating messages
To:   MsgGroup at MIT-MC

I suspect maybe a couple of people have missed the point of Lauren's
original question.  I am assuming (but maybe I'm the one that's wrong)
that the reformatting was more-or-less necessary for proper interface
with some other part of the target system.  Maybe the messages are going
to be stored in a database management system, or some such.  I know of
one case where the mail system for reasons unknown to me, but apparently
necessary, actually stores the "headers" and textbody in separate files.

On saving/losing information when reformatting, I imagine it is possible
to reformat the standard fields, but still retain intact anything the
reformatter doesn't recognize or have explicit reformatting instructions
for.  Thus, the only information lost would be related to context, if
for some reason there were anything meaningful about the order of the
header fields.  With the more structured messages coming out of the
internet environment, it is probably also possible to retain somewhere
the original "field" order so the message could be exactly reconstructed
if necessary.

Some of us already have our messages "reformatted" by a portrayal
mechanism that has it's own ideas about what header fields should be
shown to the user, and in what order.  Although the original bits are
intact as received, for all practical purposes the messages have been
irreversably reformatted (at least to the novice user who doesn't know
about alternative message systems, or about reading his/her mail file
with a text editor).  I don't see any practical difference between this
behavior and actual reformatting.  RFC733 only specifies the format
between message systems so they can correctly handle messages among each
other - what a message system does after receiving a standard message is
up to the implementors.

-Rich
-------

18-Oct-81 23:37:52-PDT,2106;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-3 rcvd at 14-Sep-81 0344-PDT
Date: 12 Sep 1981 2234-PDT
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1648  New RFCs Available;
Subject:                RFC790, RFC791, RFC792, RFC793, RFC794, RFC795
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]12-Sep-81 22:34:26.WESTINE>

New RFCs are now available from the Network Information Center in the 
NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

RFC 790:

   Title:   Assigned Numbers 
   Author:  J. Postel
   Pages :  15

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC790.TXT

   Gives the assignments of numbers for networks, protocols, etc.

RFC 791:

   Title:   Internet Protocol 
   Author:  J. Postel
   Pages :  45

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC791.TXT

   This is the universal datagram for the ARPA Internet.

RFC 792:

   Title:   Internet Control Message Protocol 
   Author:  J. Postel
   Pages :  21

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC792.TXT

   The error and information commands of the Internet Protocol.

RFC 793:

   Title:   Transmission Control Protocol 
   Author:  J. Postel
   Pages :  83

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC793.TXT

   The end-to-end reliable data stream protocol of the ARPA Internet.

RFC 794:

   Title:   Pre-Emption 
   Author:  V. Cerf
   Pages :  2

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC794.TXT

   Describes how pre-emption of connections may be implemented in TCP.

RFC 795:

   Title:   Service Mappings 
   Author:  J. Postel
   Pages :  4

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC795.TXT

   Shows how the IP type of service may be mapped onto the services of 
   selected specific networks.

RFC 796:

   Title:   Address Mappings 
   Author:  J. Postel
   Pages :  7

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC796.TXT

   Shows how the IP addresses may be mapped onto the addresses of 
   selected specific networks.

Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC 
via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

--jon.

18-Oct-81 23:37:52-PDT,1651;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-3 rcvd at 18-Sep-81 0204-PDT
Date: 17 Sep 1981 1557-PDT
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1649  RFC797, RFC798, and RFC799 Now Available
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]17-Sep-81 15:57:35.WESTINE>

New RFCs are now available from the Network Information Center in the 
NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

RFC 797:

   Title:   Format For Bitmap Files 
   Author:  A. Katz
   Pages :  2

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC797.TXT

   A simple format for storing and exchanging simple bit map data.  Data
   is stored in 8-bit bytes, and each bit represents a pixel.  The file 
   header gives the size of the bit map.

RFC 798:

   Title:   Decoding Facsimile Data From The Rapicom 450 
   Author:  A. Katz
   Pages :  17

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC798.TXT

   Details the encoding/decoding procedure for the RAPICOM 450 facsimile
   machine.  The procedure is a complex run length scheme.

RFC 799:

   Title:   Internet Name Domains 
   Author:  D. L. Mills
   Pages :  6

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC799.TXT

   This memo discusses some of the implications of the large number of 
   hosts in the internet, in particular the possible need to divide the 
   name space into regions or domains to limit the number of names that 
   any particular host need recognize.  The discussion focus on the 
   problems of names in internet mail.

Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC 
via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

--jon.

11-Nov-81 20:45:05-PST,818;000000000001 
Mail-from: MIT-MC rcvd at 23-Oct-81 1032-PDT
Date: 21 Oct 1981 2202-PDT
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1650 New NBS proposed draft standard for Message Formats ...
To:   Header-People at MIT-MC
cc:   Feinler at SRI-NIC

Proposed Federal Information Processing Standard "Specification for
Message Format for Computer Based Message Systems", dtd Sep 81 is now
out.  It is also highlighted in the 6 Oct 81 issue of the Federal
Register (Book 1 of 2, pages 49168 & 49169).  The address for
obtaining a copy is given in the F/R as

  Director,
  Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology
  National Bureau of Standards
  Attn: MFCBMS
  Washington, D.C.  20234

This is the result of the comments received on the "preliminary draft"
earlier in the year.

Enjoy,
Rich
17-Mar-82 22:42:08-PST,6875;000000000001   
Date: 22 Oct 1981 2300-PDT
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1651  SURVEY [ECL]<MSGGROUP>MSGGROUP#.1601-1650
From: MsgGroup@ecl
Reply-To: EStefferud at ECL
To: MsgGroup at ECL

The message file [ECL]<MSGGROUP>MSGGROUP#.1601-1650;1 may be FTPed from
[ECL], or you may request that specific items be redistributed to you.
Send any requests to MSGGROUP@ECL or to EStefferud@ECL.  ECL supports
FTP LOGIN ANONYMOUS with PASSWORD ARPA.

The survey below identifies all the traffic included in this file.

Best - Stef

MSGGROUP#1601  SURVEY [ECL]<MSGGROUP>MSGGROUP#.1551-1600
 6705 chars 1 May 1981 0254-PDT From: MsgGroup@ecl To: MsgGroup at MIT-M

MSGGROUP#1602  RFC 780 now available
  845 chars 18 May 1981 1522-PDT From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<W

MSGGROUP#1603  RFC 781 Available
  851 chars 22 May 1981 1750-PDT From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<W

MSGGROUP#1604  Recent events, an opinion.
 2204 chars  1 Jun 1981 (Monday) 0004-EDT From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (He

MSGGROUP#1605  Recent events, an opinion.
 4725 chars 1 June 1981 00:53-EDT From: Leonard N. Foner <FONER at MIT-A

MSGGROUP#1606  PLEASE OMIT MSGGROUP Re: Recent events, an opinion.
 1322 chars 31 May 1981 2237-PDT From: STEF at DARCOM-KA To: FONER at MI

MSGGROUP#1607  [DREIFU at WHARTON (Henry Dreifus): Recent...]
 3596 chars 1 Jun 1981 0130-PDT From: STEF at DARCOM-KA To: MsgGroup at 

MSGGROUP#1608  You can't tell the players without a scorecard....
 1008 chars 1 Jun 1981 0741-PDT From: WMartin at Office-3 To: msgGroup a

MSGGROUP#1609  Re: Dreifus: Recent events, an opinion.
 2242 chars  2 Jun 1981 0524-PDT From: Barns at OFFICE   To:   MsgGroup 

MSGGROUP#1610  ARPA-PROTEC Amethyst Transcript
 3632 chars 2 Jun 1981 0732-PDT From: STEF at DARCOM-KA To: MsgGroup at 

MSGGROUP#1611  Message practices and etiquette
 3128 chars 2 Jun 1981 0841-PDT From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) 

MSGGROUP#1612  Re: Message practices and etiquette
 1323 chars  2 June 1981 1311-EDT From: David.Lamb at CMU-10A To: WMarti

MSGGROUP#1613  Follow up on message etiquette discussion
 1171 chars 3 Jun 1981 0852-PDT From: WMartin at Office-3 (Will Martin) 

MSGGROUP#1614  Re: Follow up on message etiquette discussion
 2711 chars  3 Jun 1981 1544-EDT From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <Solomon at

MSGGROUP#1615  Re: Follow up on message etiquette discussion
  852 chars  4 Jun 1981 1834-EDT From: Wayne J. Noss <G.WJN at MIT-EECS 

MSGGROUP#1616  TWX/Telex
 1252 chars 23 Jun 1981 2057-PDT (Tuesday) From: Lauren at UCLA-SECURITY

MSGGROUP#1617  Change of name
 1509 chars  30 June 1981 23:08 edt From:  Frankston.SoftArts at MIT-Mul

MSGGROUP#1618  RFC 782 Available and Accessible !
 1332 chars 2 Jul 1981 1129-PDT From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<We

MSGGROUP#1619  The First CSNET Report
 5863 chars 3 Jul 81 21:10-EDT (Fri) From: The.CSNET.Management.Committe

MSGGROUP#1620  US Postal Service Electronic Mail
 3162 chars 8 July 1981 03:13-EDT From: Richard S. Shuford <SHUFOR at MI

MSGGROUP#1621  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
  821 chars  8 Jul 1981 0523-PDT From: Geoffrey C Mulligan (at The Penta

MSGGROUP#1622  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
  551 chars  8 Jul 1981 at 0917-PDT From: pickens at SRI-Unix To: Richar

MSGGROUP#1623  US Postal Service Electronic Mail
  509 chars 8 July 1981 18:13-EDT From: Steve Kudlak <FFM at MIT-MC> To:

MSGGROUP#1624  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
  508 chars  8 Jul 1981 1515-PDT From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF To:   GeoffM a

MSGGROUP#1625  The.CSNET.Management.Committee: MSGGROUP#1619
               The First CSNET Report
 1884 chars 8 Jul 1981 1634-PDT From: STEF at DARCOM-KA To: "[ECL]<MSGGR

MSGGROUP#1626  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
 1627 chars  8 Jul 1981 2124-EDT From: Jonathan Alan Solomon <JSol at RU

MSGGROUP#1627  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
 1848 chars  8 Jul 1981 1857-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich

MSGGROUP#1628  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
  902 chars 8 Jul 1981 1929-PDT From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow 

MSGGROUP#1629  Re: US Postal Service Electronic Mail
  893 chars 13 Jul 1981 1911-PDT From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF To:   JSol at 

MSGGROUP#1630  RFCs 783, 784, 785, 786 Available
 1667 chars 16 Jul 1981 1432-PDT From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<W

MSGGROUP#1631  Lloyd Krause at SRI
 1149 chars 18 July 1981 23:25-EDT From: Richard S. Shuford <SHUFOR at M

MSGGROUP#1632  US Postal Service ECOM
  477 chars 23 July 1981 01:39-EDT From: Richard S. Shuford <SHUFOR at M

MSGGROUP#1633  RFC787 Now Available
 1014 chars 23 Jul 1981 0941-PDT From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<W

MSGGROUP#1634  RFC789 Now Available
 1092 chars 5 Aug 1981 0946-PDT From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<We

MSGGROUP#1635  Standards vs. practices
 2150 chars 28 Aug 1981 1120-EDT From: Larry Campbell <LCAMPBELL at DEC-

MSGGROUP#1636  Re: Standards vs. practices
 1141 chars 28 Aug 1981 1034-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich

MSGGROUP#1637  Re: Standards vs. practices
 1011 chars Friday, 28 Aug 1981 13:49-PDT From: greep at RAND-UNIX To: L

MSGGROUP#1638  Suggestion(s) for RFC999, improvement to RFC733
 1015 chars 28 Aug 1981 (Friday) 1734-EDT From: DREIFU at WHARTON-10 (He

MSGGROUP#1639  Re: Suggestion(s) for RFC999, improvement to RFC733
  783 chars Friday, 28 Aug 1981 14:55-PDT From: greep at RAND-UNIX To: D

MSGGROUP#1640  Re: Standards vs. practices
 1156 chars 28 Aug 1981 1550-PDT From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow

MSGGROUP#1641  Re: Standards vs. practices
  789 chars 28 Aug 1981 1628-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich

MSGGROUP#1642  changing headers
  967 chars 10 September 1981 2219-PDT (Thursday) From: lauren at UCLA-S

MSGGROUP#1643  Re: changing headers
  763 chars 11-Sep-81  8:18:33 PDT (Friday) From: Karlton at PARC-MAXC T

MSGGROUP#1644  Changing Headers - likely to be the norm
  978 chars 11 Sep 1981 1011-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich

MSGGROUP#1645  Reformatting
  928 chars 11 Sep 1981 1412-EDT From: JWALKER at BBNA To: MsgGroup at M

MSGGROUP#1646  Reformatting messages
 3231 chars 11 Sep 1981 1713-EDT From: DDEUTSCH at BBNA To: MsgGroup at 

MSGGROUP#1647  More on reformating messages
 2070 chars 12 Sep 1981 1056-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich

MSGGROUP#1648  New RFCs Available;
               RFC790, RFC791, RFC792, RFC793, RFC794, RFC795
 2106 chars 12 Sep 1981 2234-PDT From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<W

MSGGROUP#1649  RFC797, RFC798, and RFC799 Now Available
 1651 chars 17 Sep 1981 1557-PDT From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF To: "[ISIF]<W

MSGGROUP#1650 New NBS proposed draft standard for Message Formats ...
  818 chars 21 Oct 1981 2202-PDT From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich
17-Mar-82 22:42:09-PST,330;000000000001    
Date: 29 Oct 1981 1259-CST
From: david at UTEXAS-11
Subject: MSGGROUP#1652  Mail systems for CDC, IBM
To: msggroup at mit-ml
cc: david, cc.clive at utexas-20

Is anyone aware of mail systems for an IBM 370 running CMS
and for a CDC Cyber running UT-2D (very close to NOS)?
Thank you for any help you can lend.
-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:09-PST,896;000000000000   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 29-Oct-81 1233-PST
Date: 29 Oct 1981 1158-PST
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1653  Re: Mail systems for CDC, IBM
From: STEF at DARCOM-KA
To: david at UTEXAS-11
Cc: msggroup at MIT-ML, cc.clive at UTEXAS-20
Message-ID: <[DARCOM-KA]29-Oct-81 11:58:05.STEF>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 29 Oct 1981 at 1259-CST

BBN Information Management Company claims to have such a system for
VM/CMS called INFOMAIL.  I hear rumors about migration to other IBM OS
environments.

IBM has something called PROFS (Definitely not ARPANET MAIL based) which
may or may not run on CMS.

I have heard of something for NOS (RFC733 based) on CYBER from someone
at the University of Mass.  Perhaps someone can flush out the
information on that one.  It was once referenced in Human-Nets, maybe 6
months or so ago.

Please keep us informed.  Stef

17-Mar-82 22:42:09-PST,664;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 29-Oct-81 1311-PST
Date: 29 Oct 1981 1232-PST
From: Richard Furuta <FURUTA at WASHINGTON>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1654  Re: Mail systems for CDC, IBM
To: david at UTEXAS-11, msggroup at MIT-ML
cc: cc.clive at UTEXAS-20, FURUTA at WASHINGTON
In-Reply-To: Your message of 29-Oct-81 1150-PST

Regarding the IBM-370 and CMS.  There's that entirely
disgusting rdr stuff (submitting mail to the reader and getting it back)
which I think goes under the name of msg (or maybe it was vmsg).  Also
there is a more complete mail package written either at Yorktown or
Cambridge which is in use at some IBM sites.
Rick
-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:09-PST,700;000000000000    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 30-Oct-81 0710-PST
Date: 30 October 1981 08:57-EST
From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU at MIT-MC>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1655  Mail systems for CDC, IBM
To: david at UTEXAS-11
cc: DAVID at MIT-MC, msggroup at MIT-ML, cc.clive at UTEXAS-20

BBN's INFOMAIL runs on 370s under both TSO and CMS.  Computer
Corporation of America has a version of their COMET mail system which
also runs under CMS.  IBM's PROFS system is an "integrated" office
environment including calendar management, tickler files etc.  It is
available only as a Request for Quotation in selected cities and runs
only under CMS.  None of these are Arpanet compatible.

Marvin Sirbu


17-Mar-82 22:42:09-PST,789;000000000000
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 1-Nov-81 2232-PST
Date: 30 Oct 1981 1859-EST
From: Larry Campbell <LCAMPBELL at DEC-MARLBORO>
To: MsgGroup at MIT-MC, Header-people at MIT-MC
Postal-address: "73 Concord St., Maynard, Mass. 01754"
Subject: MSGGROUP#1656  DECmail
Message-ID: <"MS5(2026)+GLXLIB1(1056)" 11772362638.19.71.8834 at DEC-MARLBORO>

DEC announced yesterday a product called DECmail, which is DEC's
"long-awaited" (?) entry into the world of commercial electronic
mail.  I would be very interested in hearing what anyone out in
the real world of electronic mail thinks about it (I have my own
opinions, but for the moment I'm witholding them).  I'm especially
interested in hearing of the experiences of anyone who has actually
tried to use it.
   --------

17-Mar-82 22:42:09-PST,4017;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 5-Nov-81 2308-PST
Date: 6 November 1981  00:47-EST  Friday
From: SWERNOFSKY at BBND
To:   Larry Campbell <LCAMPBELL at DEC-MARLBORO>
Cc:   Swernofsky at BBND, Header-people at MIT-MC, MsgGroup at MIT-MC,
      HUMAN-NETS at MIT-MC
Subject: MSGGROUP#1657  evaluation of DECmail (long message)

    From: Larry Campbell <LCAMPBELL at DEC-MARLBORO>
    Postal-address: "73 Concord St., Maynard, Mass. 01754"

    DEC announced yesterday a product called DECmail, which is DEC's
    "long-awaited" (?) entry into the world of commercial electronic
    mail.  I would be very interested in hearing what anyone out in the
    real world of electronic mail thinks about it (I have my own
    opinions, but for the moment I'm witholding them).  I'm especially
    interested in hearing of the experiences of anyone who has actually
    tried to use it.

Richard Moore is a good friend of mine and the manager of certain system
operations at Commercial Union, an insurance company with 13 DEC
machines of various flavors.  DECmail is being field-tested at their
facility; they have generated about 50 QARs ("and a lot of sore
fingers") on the subject.  Herewith his opinions on this dinosaur:

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

	I would not have used the word dinosaur.  In fact, I wasn't
intending to give sweeping condemnations of the product.  Just the
facts, that's bad enough.  Decmail is an incomplete product at this
time.  The DEC people we deal with claim that this is only what is 
to be expected from a product in early field test.  However, I think
that DECMAIL's problems go deeper than that.

	DECMAIL is designed to be a part of an office automation package
that DEC is going to released in parts over the next few years.  Its
basic release is going to be frozen after awhile unless you want to
buy the full package, and then it will be updated as the package is
updated.  So if DECMAIL isn't what you want as a generally applicable
EMS by the freeze date, forget it.  

	If you don't wish to try your luck with a part of DEC 
(the office automation group) that may be ambivalent to your general 
system needs, be it known that DECMAIL doesn't seem to pay as much
attention to VMS as to be called ambivalent.  It does not use RMS-11
for the storing of memos (Gee look MA, BACKUP don't work).
It does not use the VMS conventions for the meaning of such special 
control characters as ^O and ^C.  It has a special lock-in editor
which "looks like" EDT, but it isn't.  Instead, the editor that
comes as part of DECMAIL is based on the word-processor that will
be put on the VAX and DECMAIL doesn't allow you to bypass it,
either by asking for the Editor of your choice, OR defining keys.
(the subset of EDT doesn't allow for the defining of keys since
"Sally Secretary might break something" -[that was a DEC spokesman]).
DEC has promised that someday real soon DECMAIL will allow for the
inputing of a non-DECMAIL generated file to be entered into the 
"system".  Right now you can do it by a kluge, but DEC won't admit it
since you will have SYSPRV while you read in the file of your choice.
(someday DEC will learn about turning off Priv.s, when we told them
about the kluge, they promised to remove it for the next release).
The list goes on and on and on.. 

	I am running late.  The fifty QAR's are real QAR's.  As far
as I can tell DECMAIL was not designed top-down.  (that is a guess)
Instead it was designed, bottom up.  The menus are not consistent in
the method that you use to exit them.  The Marketing people quickly
learned that the most obvious way to exit the ditty was to turn off
their terminals.  If you want a piece of EMS that will be usable 
only by a small subset of the system users with any ease at all,
then DECMAIL is for you.  If not, be comforted by the fact that the
internal developers for DEC won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
They use the freebee MAIL instead.

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

17-Mar-82 22:42:09-PST,724;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 5-Nov-81 2301-PST
Date:  5 Nov 1981 2239-PST
From: Rich Miller <INFOMEDIA at USC-ECL>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1658  Re: Mail systems for CDC, IBM
To: david at UTEXAS-11, msggroup at MIT-ML
cc: cc.clive at UTEXAS-20, INFOMEDIA at USC-ECL
In-Reply-To: Your message of 29-Oct-81 1134-PST

Re Mail Systems for CDC,
About 4 years ago we wrote a prototype Mail/Computer conference
system for CDC which (I believe) ran under the KRONOS (sp) operating
system. CDC swallowed it up, and to my knowledge never went further
with it. If you would like more information, the system's name was
TOPICS, and the programmer was Robert Beebe. He is still at
Infomedia.

Rich Miller
-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:10-PST,485;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 8-Nov-81 0639-PST
Date:      8 Nov 81 8:59:24-EST (Sun)
From:      Dave Farber <farber.EE@UDel>
To:        msggroup at Mit-Mc
Subject: MSGGROUP#1659  New mailing list
Via:  UDel-EE; 8 Nov 81 9:01-EST

There are some of us who are in the process of forming a mailing list to
talk about problems particular to the Onyx Unix implementations and
applications that run on the Onyx.  Send me a note if you are
interested.

Dave Farber


17-Mar-82 22:42:10-PST,426;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 10-Nov-81 0414-PST
Date: 10 Nov 1981 0405-PST
From: KIRSTEIN at USC-ISI
Subject: MSGGROUP#1660  MsgGroup mailing list
To:   MsgGroup at MIT-MC
cc:   kirstein, uksat at ISIE, rcole at ISIE


Could the account KIRSTEIN@ISIA on this mailing list be
replaced with UKSAT@ISIE, as this is the accoount which
those responsible for mail systems at UCL read.

Steve Kille
-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:10-PST,1446;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 10-Nov-81 1033-PST
Date: 10 Nov 1981 0923-PST
Sender: WAUGH at OFFICE-3
Subject: MSGGROUP#1661  Re:   New mailing list
From: WAUGH at OFFICE-3
To: farber.EE at UDEL
Cc: msggroup at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]10-Nov-81 09:23:18.WAUGH>
In-Reply-To: Your message of      8 Nov 81 8:59:24-EST (Sun)

HI DAVE,

   I AM INTERESTED IN BEING ON YOUR MAILING LIST TO TALK ABOUT
PROBLEMS WITH THE ONYX UNIX IMPLEMENTATIONS.  I AM CURRENTLY
WORKING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WITH MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD, BUT
HAVE A US ARMY RESERVE ATTACHMENT STATUS TO ALMSA.  I USED TO
WORK ON THE ELITE PROJECT PRIOR TO MY DEPARTURE FROM THE SERVICE
IN MAY 81.

   I WILL BE WORKING ON SPECIAL PROJECTS FOR BILL WALSH DURING
THE YEAR AND WILL DOING THE SAME TYPE OF WORK AT DARCOM DMIS
DURING MY TWO WEEK ACTIVE DUTY TIME IN THE SPRING.  I AM FAMILIAR
WITH THE ONYX BOX AND UNIX AND MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME
CONTRIBUTIONS.

   I AM CURRENTLY WORKING FOR THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD, AS
THEIR OFFICE AUTOMATION GUY.  I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THE
CORPORATE STRATEGY FOR OA AND FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF WHATEVER
WE DECIDE UPON.  I FIND THINGS ALITTLE DIFFERENT ON THE OUTSIDE
THAN ON THE INSIDE WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

   I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR DISCUSSIONS ON THE ONYX UNIX
IMPLEMENTATION AND APPLICATIONS.

                                REGARDS,

                                GOREE
17-Mar-82 22:42:10-PST,452;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 12-Nov-81 0942-PST
Date: 12 Nov 1981 0922-PST
Sender: WAUGH at OFFICE-3
Subject: MSGGROUP#1662  DOW JONES NEWS/RETRIEVAL SERVICE
From:  Goree Waugh
To: MSGGROUP at MIT-MC
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]12-Nov-81 09:22:50.WAUGH>


   I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING COMMENTS/EXPERIENCES FROM
ANYONE WHO HAS USED OR IS USING THE DOW JONES NEWS/RETRIEVAL
SERVICE.

   THANKS.

				Regards,

				Goree


17-Mar-82 22:42:10-PST,397;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 24-Nov-81 1237-PST
Date: 24 November 1981 1508-EST (Tuesday)
From: David.Lamb at CMU-10A
To: MsgGroup at MIT-MC
Subject: MSGGROUP#1663  NBS Draft Message Format Standard
Message-Id: <24Nov81 150834 DL10@CMU-10A>

Have others on this list discussed the proposed NBS message format
standard?  Does anyone have plans for making use of this proposal?

17-Mar-82 22:42:10-PST,683;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 24-Nov-81 1310-PST
Date: 24 Nov 1981 12:46 PST
From: White at PARC-MAXC
Subject: MSGGROUP#1664  Re: NBS Draft Message Format Standard
In-reply-to: David.Lamb's message of 24 November 1981 1508-EST 
             (Tuesday), <24Nov81 150834 DL10@CMU-10A>
To: David.Lamb at CMU-10A
cc: MsgGroup at MIT-MC

David, NBS' draft message format standard has been distributed and
discussed at several meetings of the Systems Environment (architecture
and protocols) subgroup of IFIP WG 6.5 (electronic mail).  A second
version of the draft standard was recently completed by NBS and is now
out for public comment.

  /Jim White, Xerox


17-Mar-82 22:42:10-PST,1785;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 25-Nov-81 1224-PST
Date: 25 November 1981 1437-EST (Wednesday)
From: David.Lamb at CMU-10A
To: White at PARC-MAXC
Subject: MSGGROUP#1665  Re: NBS Draft Message Format Standard
CC: David.Lamb at CMU-10A, MsgGroup at MIT-MC
In-Reply-To:  White@PARC-MAXC's message of 24 Nov 81 15:46-EST
Message-Id: <25Nov81 143714 DL10@CMU-10A>

I should have been a little more explicit.  As part of planning for
handling the Spice mail system at CMU, I am looking at what's
happening with electronic mail elsewhere (Spice is a local network of
personal workstations; a copy of the original proposal appears in the
Winter 1980 issue of ACM SIGPC Notes, Volume 3 issue 3/4).  I read
and commented on the earlier draft of the NBS standard, and have
received a copy of the new version but have not had a chance to read
it yet.

Do any groups represented on this list have plans for shifting to the
use of this message transport standard?  In particular, are there any
plans for using it on the ARPAnet?  If so, what kind of time scale is
being envisioned for this?

I'm also interested in reactions to the technical details of the
standard.  A friend of mine, for instance, claims the proposal's
notion of a mail destination is "totally inadequate".  My reaction to
the earlier draft was generally positive, based on my personal
prejudice in favour of having the transport form of a message being
designed for machine-readability rather than human-readability [one
of my few complaints about RFC733 is that it's too much the other
way].  I'm not sure this level of discussion belong here on MsgGroup,
but I feel that the earlier one, about whether people plan to
eventually use the NBS proposal, does belong.

			David Alex Lamb

17-Mar-82 22:42:10-PST,833;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 25-Nov-81 1538-PST
Date: 25 Nov 1981 1311-PST
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1666  Re: NBS Draft Message Format Standard
From: STEF at DARCOM-KA
To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Message-ID: <[DARCOM-KA]25-Nov-81 13:11:32.STEF>
In-Reply-To: <25Nov81 143714 DL10@CMU-10A> 
             David.Lamb@CMU-10A White@PARC-MAXC

Hi David - I believe the issues you raise belong squarely in
MsgGroup, and I would hope a discussion might follow your
introduction of the questions.

Is there a handy netmail address to which we might send requests
for copies of the DRAFT proposal.  I received the first one, and
have been involved in the IFIP 6.5 work, so expected to
automatically receive the latest new version, but it has not
arrived so I need to send a request.

Best - Stef

17-Mar-82 22:42:10-PST,500;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-MC rcvd at 27-Nov-81 1217-PST
Date: 27 Nov 1981 1122-PST
From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1667  re: NBS Draft Message Format Standards
To:   msggroup at MIT-MC


David Lamb:

I am not aware of any plans in the ARPA Community to implement the NBS
message formats.  There is some work in progress on mail systems to 
support multimedia data (and in general arbitrary data structures), 
based on the design in RFC 759 and RFC 767.

--jon.
-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:11-PST,1146;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-3 rcvd at 30-Nov-81 1226-PST
Return-path: POSTEL@ISIF
Date: 29 Nov 1981 1647-PST
From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1668  RFC 788 Now Available
To:   "Request-for-Comments.List":

A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in the 
NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

RFC 788:

   Title:   Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
   Author:  J. Postel
   Pages :  64

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC788.TXT

   This is the specification of the mail transfer protocol to be used in
   the ARPA Internet.  This details the commands and replies exchanged 
   between hosts to coordinate the transfer of mail.  This protocol 
   provides for all of the features of the old FTP/NCP based mail 
   procedures, and in addition explicitly provides for the relaying of 
   mail.

Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC 
via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list should be
sent to NIC@SRI-NIC.  Submissions for RFCs should be sent to 
POSTEL@ISIF.

--jon.

-------
17-Mar-82 22:42:11-PST,948;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-3 rcvd at 30-Nov-81 1228-PST
Date: 29 Nov 1981 2354-PST
From: POSTEL at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1669  RFC 801 Now Available
To:   "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":

A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in the 
NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

RFC 801:

   Title:   NCP/TCP Transition Plan
   Author:  J. Postel
   Pages :  21

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC801.TXT

   This is a description of the steps to be taken and facilities to be 
   provided during the transition from the old ARPANET NCP protocols to 
   the new ARPA Internet TCP protocol.

Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC 
via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list should be
sent to NIC@SRI-NIC.  Submissions for RFCs should be sent to 
POSTEL@ISIF.

--jon.

-------
17-Mar-82 22:42:11-PST,1415;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-8 rcvd at 3-Dec-81 1649-PST
Return-path: POSTEL@ISIF
Date:  2 Dec 1981 2003-PST
From: NIC at SRI-NIC
Sender: Postel at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1670  RFC 802 Now Available
To:   "Request-For-Comments.List":

A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in the 
NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

RFC 802:

   Title:   The ARPANET 1822L Host Access Protocol
   Author:  A. Malis
   Pages :  43

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC802.TXT

   This document proposes two new features in the HOST/IPM protocol: (1)
   a logical addressing mechanism, and (2) a "short-blocking" mechanism.
   The logical addressing feature will allow the use of a 1822 level 
   "name" for a host which in independent of the host's actual location.
   The short blocking feature will permit the host's to maintain a high 
   message transmission rate across a set of destinations even though a 
   few destinations may be slow in accepting messages.  This RFC is 
   proposed to become Appendix L to BBN Report 1822 which defines the 
   HOST/IMP protocol.

Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC 
via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list should be
sent to NIC@SRI-NIC.  Submissions for RFCs should be sent to 
POSTEL@ISIF.

--jon.

-------
17-Mar-82 22:42:11-PST,1309;000000000000    
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-8 rcvd at 11-Dec-81 0041-PST
Date: 10 Dec 1981 1614-PST
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1671  RFCs 803 and 804 Now Available
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF]10-Dec-81 16:14:06.WESTINE>

New RFCs are now available from the Network Information Center in the 
NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

RFC 803:

   Title:   Dacom 450/500 Facsimile Data Transcoding 
   Author:  A. Agarwal, M. J. O'Connor and D. L. Mills
   Pages :  14

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC803.TXT

   A description of the programs used at COMSAT Laboratories for 
   decoding and encoding facsimile data for the RAPICOM 450 and 500 
   machine.  Includes a description of the RAPICOM 450 algorithm.

RFC 804:

   Title:   CCITT Draft Recommendation T.4 
   Author:  CCITT
   Pages :  12

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC804.TXT

   A description of the CCITT T.4 algorithm for facsimile encoding.

Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC 
via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list should be
sent to NIC@SRI-NIC.  Submissions for RFCs should be sent to 
POSTEL@ISIF.

--jon.

17-Mar-82 22:42:11-PST,661;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 17-Dec-81 2004-PST
Date: 17 Dec 1981 2241-EST
From: Steve King <KING at AFSC-HQ>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1672  Computerized Encyclopedia on ArpaNet
To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML, Human-Nets at MIT-AI

These Mailboxes were contacts suggested by Mark Crispin@SU-SCORE.

I've been looking for some sort of Automated Encyclopedia Data Bases
which may be accessible in order to help my daughters research various
projects handed out in 6th and 7th grades.  Tried the SOURCE, but they
are not historical.

Does anyone have any suggestions?  Thanks.

Steve King (KING@AFSC-HQ or G.KING@SU-SCORE or HQ.KING@AFSC-SD)
-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:11-PST,394;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 23-Dec-81 1116-PST
Date: 23 Dec 1981 1336-EST
Sender: MOOERS at BBNA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1673  Message systems for RSTS/E on PDP-11's
From: MOOERS at BBNA
To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML
Cc: Mooers at BBNA
Message-ID: <[BBNA]23-Dec-81 13:36:26.MOOERS>

Does anyone know of any message system that runs under
the RSTS/E operating system?

---Charlotte

17-Mar-82 22:42:11-PST,1967;000000000001 
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 30-Dec-81 1530-PST
Date: 30 Dec 1981 1459-PST
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: MSGGROUP#1674  Western Union gets electronic mail vendor "okay".
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL
To: Human-nets at AI, MsgGroup at ML
Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL]30-Dec-81 14:59:31.GEOFF>

	
Mail-From: ARPANET host SRI-KL rcvd at 30-Dec-81 1331-PST
Date: 30 Dec 1981 1124-PST
From: NS at SRI-KL
Subject: News Story: #503*(COMPUTER)/INW/AT 11:24/ON 30-Dec-81
To: GEOFF at SRI-KL

e503 11:24  30-Dec-81
q 26 
dj#zcqex
-

-western union unit gets
electronic mail vendor okay

   upper saddle river nj -(dj)-- western union
electronic mail inc  a subsidiary of western
union corp  said it has become the first 
vendor to be certified by the postal 
service to offer access to the postal 
service's electronic computer originated 
mail  or e-com service.
   the company said certification followed the
successful completion of transmission tests
between its computer center in mclean va.
and an e-com-equipped post office in camden
n.j.
   the company said it now has in place the
software and other facilities required to 
interface with the 25 serving post offices
around the country that have been designated
to handle e-com traffic when the service
begins on jan 4.
   john e. fox  western union's vice
president marketing  said  'with the addition
of e-com western union electronic mail will
be able to offer a full range of 
electronic-assisted mail services  including
stored mailgram and computer letter service
building on its established base of 
approximately 25 million messages annually.'
   western union said five manufacturers
and six vendors have signed cooperative
agreements to promote western union
electronic mail service as a value-added
feature of their communicating word processing
terminals.
-0-
   
-(dj-12-30-81 1925gmt

-------
		

17-Mar-82 22:42:11-PST,2044;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 30-Dec-81 1711-PST
Date: 30 Dec 1981 1615-PST
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: MSGGROUP#1675  Postal Service is sued to block electronic mail.
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL
To: human-nets at AI, msggroup at ML
Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL]30-Dec-81 16:15:46.GEOFF>

	
Begin forwarded message
===========================
Mail-from: ARPANET host SRI-KL rcvd at 30-Dec-81 1554-PST
Date: 30 Dec 1981 1548-PST
From: NS at SRI-KL
Subject: News Story: #642*(COMPUTER)/INW/AT 15:47/ON 30-Dec-81
To: GEOFF at SRI-KL

e642 15:47  30-Dec-81
q 26 
dj#zcqsqex
-

postal service is sued
to block electronic mail

   washn -(dj)-- the justice department filed a 
lawsuit seeking to block the u.s. postal service
from beginning its planned electronic mail 
service. 
   a department attorney said that the suit 
claims the postal service has failed to 
comply with the terms of the postal 
reorganization act of 1970. 
   the 1970 act bars the postal service from 
starting a new service without a valid 
recommendation to proceed with the service 
from the postal rate commission. 
   the rate commission recommended an 
experimental electronic mail service by the 
postal service  but a court of appeals blocked
any experimental program. 
   the appeals court returned the matter
to the postal rate commission  which began 
expedited hearings on whether to establish 
a permanent electronic mail delivery system. 
but the postal service refused to participate in
those hearings  and they were suspended dec. 3.
the postal service plans to introduce its 
electronic mail service jan. 4. 
   earlier today western union electronic mail 
inc  a subsidiary of western union corp  said 
it had becme the first vendor to be certified by
the postal service to offer access to the 
postal service's electronic computer 
originated mail. 
-0-
   
-(dj-12-30-81 2349gmt

-------
===========================
End forwarded message
		

17-Mar-82 22:42:12-PST,511;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 6-Jan-82 1559-PST
Date:  6 Jan 1982 1307-PST
From: UKSAT at USC-ISIE
Subject: MSGGROUP#1676  JNT Mail Protocol spec available
To:   msggroup at MIT-ML
cc:   ucl-netwiz


A document describing the mail protocol which has been adopted as an
interim standard by the UK Joint Network Team (JNT) is online at ISIE.
   <ucl-netwiz>usjnt.txt

This file may be copied using FTP with login to anonymous with password
guest.

Steve Kille and Bob Braden

-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:12-PST,706;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 14-Jan-82 1646-PST
Date:      14 Jan 82 18:12:41-EST (Thu)
From:      Michael Muuss <mike@BRL>
To:        MSGGroup at AI
Subject: MSGGROUP#1677  TCP Digest & Discussion of Mailer Headers

As a result of talking about connections between multiple networks,
and mail relay between NCP and TCP style ArpaNet hosts, there has
recently been a fair amount of discussion about MAIL headers,
and proper multiple network naming and addressing schemes.

I would be interested in getting pointers to earlier discussion of
this material, so that the TCP-Digest people don't run open loop
and re-invent the wheel.  Especially if it came out oblong!
				-Mike



17-Mar-82 22:42:12-PST,609;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Jan-82 0014-PST
Date: 18 Jan 1982 0551-PST
Sender: WAUGH at OFFICE-3
Subject: MSGGROUP#1678  DIGITAL'S "CHARLOTTE" SYSTEM
From: GOREE WAUGH  (OFFICE-3)
To: MSGGROUP at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <[OFFICE-3]18-Jan-82 05:51:07.WAUGH>


     DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY INFORMATION OR EXPERIENCE WITH DECS NEW
"CHARLOTTE" SYSTEM.  FROM WHAT I CAN FIND OUT, IT IS THEIR
OFFICE AUTOMATION SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES A FRIENDLY USER INTERFACE
(WITH HOOKS) TO ALL OF THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE OFFERED IN THEIR
"OFFICE PLUS" MARKETING PACKAGE FOR OA.

				Regards,

				Goree



17-Mar-82 22:42:12-PST,1760;000000000001   
Mail-from: MIT-ML rcvd at 22-Jan-82 1417-PST
Date: 22 Jan 1982 1349-PST
Sender: ADPSC at USC-ISI
Subject: MSGGROUP#1679  Call for COMPCON papers
From: jim.fcc-net at udel
Reply-To: jim.fcc-net at UDEL
To: msggroup at MIT-AI, Human-nets at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <[USC-ISI]22-Jan-82 13:49:13.ADPSC>

     IEEE is again in 1982 presenting a conference on computer networks
in Washington DC September 20-24. The Program Committee is soliciting a
variety of papers and panel sessions for this important conference.
COMPCON Fall 82 will provide the forum for researchers, vendors, users,
or legislators to explore and exchange ideas on the underlying
technologies applications and public policy issues for the 80's. We are
soliciting state-of-the art surveys, reports or analyses of existing
systems, and leading-edge papers.
     Special emphasis, in the form of coordinated theme sessions, are
to be given to the following:

	   Local area networks

	   City-wide/cable and radio networks

	   Value-added networks

	   Network environment/interconnection

	   International topics

	   Network management

     Topics of interest include new network applications, distributed
computing, electronic mail, protocols and standards, organizational
and business issues, international networks, host and application
interfaces, technology, regulation and policy issues.
     All papers must be submitted in the form of an informal digest
(4 copies) of approximately 1000 words by April 1,1982 to Alan Weis,
COMPCON Fall 82, P.O. Box 639, Silver Spring MD 20901, USA. For
information call (914) 383-2000.
     Any suggestions for panels or panel participation are also
welcome.
				     Jim Vorhies
				 Program Committee Member
17-Mar-82 22:42:12-PST,234;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 8-Feb-82 1627-PST
Date:  8 February 1982 18:00 est
From:  Schauble.Multics at MIT-Multics
Subject: MSGGROUP#1680  Archives
To:  MsgGroup at MIT-AI

Where are the archives these days??


17-Mar-82 22:42:12-PST,540;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 9-Feb-82 0003-PST
Date: 8 Feb 1982 2341-PST
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1681  Re:  Archives
From: STEF at DARCOM-KA
To: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Cc: MsgGroup at MIT-AI
Message-ID: <[DARCOM-KA] 8-Feb-82 23:41:08.STEF>
In-Reply-To: Your message of  8 February 1982 18:00 est

The MsgGroup archives are all on-line at the same old place -
[ecl]<msggroup>msggroup.*.*

FTP login ANONYMOUS with PassWord MSGGROUP works at ECL.

ECL is a TOPS-20.

Cheers - Stef


17-Mar-82 22:42:12-PST,1446;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-8 rcvd at 11-Feb-82 1348-PST
Return-path: WESTINE@ISIF
Date:  9 Feb 1982 1500-PST
Sender: Westine at USC-ISIF
From:   Postel at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1682  RFC 806 Now Available
To: "Request-for-Comments-List":

      A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in 
      the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

      RFC 806:

         Title:   Proposed Federal Information Processing Standard
                  Specification for Message Format for
                  Computer Based Message Systems
         Author:  National Bureau of Standards
         Pages :  107

            pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC806.TXT

         This document describes a format for computer mail messages.  
         This format is very close to being adopted as a U.S. Government
         Standard (FIPS).  It is being circulated as an RFC to be sure 
         that members of the ARPA research community have an opportunity
         to make comments to the NBS (Watkins@NBS-10).  It is not 
         proposed that this format be used in ARPANET mail.

      Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at 
      SRI-NIC via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

      Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list 
      should be sent to NIC@SRI-NIC.  Submissions for RFCs should be 
      sent to POSTEL@ISIF.

      --jon.

17-Mar-82 22:42:12-PST,1196;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-8 rcvd at 11-Feb-82 1349-PST
Return-path: WESTINE@ISIF
Date:  9 Feb 1982 1600-PST
From:  Postel at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1683  RFC 805 Now Available
To: "Request-for-Comments-List":

      A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in 
      the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

      RFC 805:

         Title:   Computer Mail Meeting Notes
         Author:  J. Postel
         Pages :  6

            pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC805.TXT

         This memo describes a meeting held to discuss computer mail 
         addressing issues, and the conclusions reached.  The most 
         important result is a decision to extend the "USER@HOST" 
         mailbox identifier to "USER@HOST.DOMAIN", where domains are 
         hierarchically structured absolute globally unique addresses.

      Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at 
      SRI-NIC via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

      Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list 
      should be sent to NIC@SRI-NIC.  Submissions for RFCs should be 
      sent to POSTEL@ISIF.

      --jon.

17-Mar-82 22:42:13-PST,1080;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-8 rcvd at 11-Feb-82 1348-PST
Return-path: WESTINE@ISIF
Date:  9 Feb 1982 1730-PST
Sender:  Westine at USC-ISIF
From:    Postel at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1684  RFC 807 Now Available
To:  "Request-for-Comments-List":

      A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in 
      the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

      RFC 807:

         Title:   Multimedia Mail Meeting Notes
         Author:  J. Postel
         Pages :  7

            pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC807.TXT

         This memo summarizes a meeting held to discuss multimedia 
         computer mail and experiments.  The main result is an agreement
         on a specific multimedia multisite experiment.

      Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at 
      SRI-NIC via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

      Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list 
      should be sent to NIC@SRI-NIC.  Submissions for RFCs should be 
      sent to POSTEL@ISIF.

      --jon.

17-Mar-82 22:42:13-PST,1054;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 9-Feb-82 2124-PST
Date:  9 Feb 1982 2307-CST
Sender: ZELLICH at OFFICE-3
Subject: MSGGROUP#1685  NBS draft report now out: "Features of a Message
Subject:                Transfer Protocol" 
To: MsgGroup at MIT-ML 
Cc: ZELLICH at OFFICE-3, WATKINS AT NBS-10 
Message-ID: < 9-Feb-82 23:05:49-CST ZELLICH at OFFICE-3>

I recently received copies, thru various channels, of National Bureau of
Standards draft Report No. ICST/CBOS-81-5, "Features of a Message
Transfer Protocol".  This document is a \discussion/ of service features
and protocols, not a specification of the protocols to be used to
implement message service features.

Copies are probably available on request from the address given for
comments (as shown below), and I would guess a message to Shirley Ward
Watkins <WATKINS at NBS-10> would also work.

   National Bureau of Standards (CBOS-81-5-SWW)
   Systems and Network Architecture Division
   Technology Building, Room B218
   Washington, D.C.  20234

-Rich Zellich


117-Mar-82 22:42:13-PST,477;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 9-Feb-82 2144-PST
Date:  9 Feb 1982 2126-PST
From: Richard Furuta <Furuta at WASHINGTON>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1686  uucp messages and blank lines
To: msggroup at MIT-ML
cc: Furuta at WASHINGTON

I've been noticing that messages directed to the various mailing lists
from uucp seem to have blank lines at their ends.  Is it my imagination,
or is a blank line appended by each machine a message passes through?
			--Rick
-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:13-PST,521;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 9-Feb-82 2204-PST
Date:      10 Feb 82 0:47:47-EST (Wed)
From:      Dpk at BRL
To:        msggroup at Mit-Ml
cc:        postel at Usc-Isif
Subject: MSGGROUP#1687  Recent NBS "RFC" on mail protocols

	I believe this has been released as RFC807 from SRI-NIC for
informational purposes by Jon Postel.  If you can FTP it, you can
probably get a copy faster although I warn you that it is about 100
pages long.  The file is <NETINFO>RFC807.TXT.

					Cheers
						Doug


17-Mar-82 22:42:13-PST,502;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 9-Feb-82 2222-PST
Date:      10 Feb 82 0:50:29-EST (Wed)
From:      Dpk at BRL
To:        Richard Furuta <Furuta@washington>
cc:        msggroup at Mit-Ml, Furuta at WASHINGTON
Subject: MSGGROUP#1688  Re:  uucp messages and blank lines

	Its not your imagination.  You have diagnosed the lossage
correctly, each machine is adding a blank line.  Really annoying
when you have to read it several hops from the destination.

					Sigh...
						Doug


17-Mar-82 22:42:13-PST,712;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 9-Feb-82 2303-PST
Date:  9 Feb 1982 2230-PST
From: Zellich at OFFICE-3 (Rich Zellich)
Subject: MSGGROUP#1689  Re: Recent NBS "RFC" on mail protocols
To:   Dpk at BRL, msggroup at MIT-ML
cc:   postel at USC-ISIF, ZELLICH

In response to the message sent 10 Feb 82 0:47:47-EST (Wed) from Dpk@BRL

I just received notice of availability of RFC's 805-807 tonight.  RFC
806 is related to the Message Transfer Protocol draft report, but is
definitely a separate (and older) document.  The NBS document available
as RFC 806 is on it's 2nd or 3rd iteration of staffing, while the new
draft report is, as far is I know, on the 1st go-round.
  Cheers, Rich
-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:13-PST,1333;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host USC-ECL rcvd at 10-Feb-82 0027-PST
Date: 10 Feb 1982 0007-CST
Sender: ZELLICH at OFFICE-3
Subject: MSGGROUP#1690  Mailing-List Verification
To: EStefferud at USC-ECL
Cc: MsgGroup at USC-ECL
Message-ID: <10-Feb-82 00:07:43-CST ZELLICH at OFFICE-3>

I maintain a publicly-accessible file on OFFICE-3 containing a list of
all the ARPANET interest groups, mailing lists, discussion groups,
digests, etc. of which I am aware.  Since I am on distribution for only
a few of these, the individual entries are not necessarily up to date.

Following is the entry from file <ALMSA>INTEREST-GROUPS.TXT for your
particular mailing list.  I would appreciate it if you would take the
time to check it for currency, and let me know if any updates are
necessary.

Thanks,
Rich Zellich
------------

MsgGroup at MIT-ML

   Interest in electronic mail, message formats, message systems, and
   the sociological implications of the above.

   Archives are kept at USC-ECL in files <MSGGROUP>MSGGROUP.*, where *
   stands for a range of messages, in blocks of 100 (from 0001 thru
   1100) or 50 (from 1101 on up) (MSGGROUP.0001-0100,
   MSGGROUP.0101-0200, MSGGROUP.1101-1150, etc.).  As of 9 Feb 82, the
   last file was *.1651-1700.

   Coordinator: EStefferud at USC-ECL/MsgGroup at USC-ECL

17-Mar-82 22:42:13-PST,1299;000000000001    
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 10-Feb-82 2220-PST
Date: 10 February 1982 16:02-EDT
From: ALA@MIT-AI
Subject: MSGGROUP#1691  NBS Messaging Documents
To: MsgGroup@MIT-ML
Cc: Zellich@OFFICE-3

Perhaps I can clear up some of the aparent confusion over NBS documents.
There are at least five proposed NBS Messaging Documents. Two exist for
public review in some form. The others have not yet been released.
These documents are:


      Message Format -

      Feature Analysis -

      Service Specification -

      Naming and Addressing -

      Design Specification For The Protocol -


I believe RFC806 is the Message Format Specification. This document has
had two reviews and appears to be close to final format. The document
Zellich refers to is the NBS Feature Analysis. Although this is
available electronically I don't believe it is available as an RFC (some
one correct me if it is). This later document came out last month for
first review.

The other three remaining NBS Messaging documents will be available
between late February and late June. If they work like previous
documents, they are available in both electronic and paper format. Note
that these are looong documents. You might want to get them on paper.

      Best,
      Alyson


17-Mar-82 22:42:13-PST,8665;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 15-Feb-82 2307-PST
Date: 15 Feb 1982 16:19:12-PST
From: mo at LBL-UNIX (Mike O'Dell [system])
To: msggroup at mit-ai
Cc: 
Subject: MSGGROUP#1692  Nominee for most amazing message ever seen


If this little gem doesn't break you mail reader, you are in good shape!

------- Forwarded Message

Date: 15 Feb 1982 1500-PST (Monday)
From: jef
To: 20-people@RANDOM-NET
Subject: the following strange message...
Cc: Almquist@CMU-20C, BYRNE@CMU-20C, CSTNBL@MIT-MC, D.michael@BERKELEY,
    ELM@CMU-20C, FISH@MIT-MC, FURST@MIT-MC, Inners@CMU-20C,
    Lammert@CMU-20C, Lomicka@CMU-20C, MJA@CMU-20C, REM@MIT-MC,
    Schwartz@CMU-20C, a.slither@BERKELEY, csvax.DRB@BERKELEY,
    geoff@SRI-CSL, jacobson, leres, mo, vern

--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
>From Andrea.Michaels@CMU-10A Mon Feb 15 09:08:14 1982
Received: Network mail from host MIT-MC for jef on Mon Feb 15 09:07:11 1982
Date: 14 February 1982 1115-EST (Sunday)
From: Andrea.Michaels at CMU-10A
To: Suzanna.Garreau at CMU-10A, bh at mit-ai, teitz at parc-maxc,
    nelson at parc-maxc, 
Subject:  this is ridiculous, i do not know why i am bothering!
CC: Merrick.Furst at CMU-10A, Mark.Wright at CMU-10A, Brad.Allen at CMU-10A,
    strohm@cmu-780g at CMU-10A, judy rosenberg at CMU-10A,
    Steven.Minton at CMU-10A, Bruce.Lucas at CMU-10A,
    Richard.Korf at CMU-10A, Betsy.Herk at CMU-10A,
    Jim.Gasbarro at CMU-10A, cynthia hibbard at CMU-10A,
    sylvia hoy at CMU-10A, sharon burks at CMU-10A,
    Glenda.Childress at CMU-10A, dale miller at CMU-10A,
    dale moore at CMU-10A
Message-Id: <14Feb82 111506 AM06@CMU-10A>
Origin:  C425AM06 at CMU-10A; 14 Feb 1982 1118-EST
Remailed-To: aqe at MIT-MC
Remailed-From: Dale.Moore at CMU-10A
Remailed-Date: Monday, 15 February 1982 1105-EST


- - - - Begin forwarded message - - - -
Mail-Created: 13 Feb 1982 1920-EST by SHULMAN
Date: 13 Feb 1982 1920-EST
From: Jeffrey Shulman <SHULMAN at RUTGERS>
Subject: [Laz Munoz <MUNOZ at GREEN>: [HAGERTY: [animal@mit-ml: do not break this chain or your machine may crash]]]
To: dsmith, mitchell, roach, levy, hedrick, prspool, nagel, kastner,
    utgoff, cs.applewhite at UTEXAS-20, liebSCHUTZ, sietz, weinrich,
    gabinelli, steinberg, schooLEY, kedar-cabelli at RU-GREEN, kelly,
    rgsmith
Remailed-date: 13 Feb 1982 2002-EST
Remailed-from: Rob Liebschutz <LIEBSCHUTZ at RUTGERS>
Remailed-to: Thompson at RUTGERS, Platoff at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS,
    Peticolas at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS, Watrous at RUTGERS, Pleasant at RUTGERS,
    G.Gold at SU-SCORE, Libes at RUTGERS, Touretzky at CMU-10A,
    Jsol at USC-ECLB, Rinehart at RUTGERS, Leone at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS,
    Hird at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS, Turock at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS,
    Stillman at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS, Zeve at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS,
    Evans at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS, Bank at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS,
    Gprice at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS, Marantz at RUTGERS,
    Magill at RU-GREEN at RUTGERS
Via:     RUTGERS; 13 Feb 1982 2000-EST
Remailed-To: Gail Kaiser at CMU-10A, Aaron Wohl at CMU-10A,
             Peter Schwarz at CMU-10A,
             Craig Everhart at CMU-10A, Joe Newcomer at CMU-10A,
             Rick Gumpertz at CMU-10A
Remailed-From: Dave Touretzky at CMU-10A
Remailed-Date: 13 February 1982 2009-EST
Via:     C410DT50 at CMU-10A; 13 Feb 1982 2009-EST
Remailed-To: Lawrence Butcher at CMU-10A, Mike Kazar at CMU-10A,
             David Nichols at CMU-10A, Philip Lehman at CMU-10A,
             Bob Walker at CMU-10A, James Saxe at CMU-10A,
             Carolyn Councill at CMU-10A,
             Anne Rogers at CMU-10A, James Gosling at CMU-10A,
             Brian Reid at CMU-10A, Andrea Michaels at CMU-10A,
             Paul Hilfinger at CMU-10A, John Zsarnay at CMU-10A,
             Beth Bottos at CMU-10A, Catherine Cole at CMU-10A,
             Thomas Rodeheffer at CMU-10A,
             Connie Gormley at CMU-10A, Mark Zaremsky at CMU-10A
Remailed-From: Craig Everhart at CMU-10A
Remailed-Date: Sunday, 14 February 1982 0015-EST
Via:     C410CE10 at CMU-10A; 14 Feb 1982 0016-EST

Mail-From: MUNOZ@GREEN created at 13-Feb-82 19:00:45
Date: Saturday, 13 February 1982  18:59-EST
From: Laz Munoz <MUNOZ at GREEN>
To:   swhite at GREEN, ssmith at GREEN, zoback at GREEN, seitz at GREEN,
      selinger at GREEN, shulman at GREEN, kiesche at GREEN,
      fischer at GREEN
Subject: [HAGERTY: [animal@mit-ml: do not break this chain or your machine may crash]]

Date: Saturday, 13 February 1982  18:43-EST
From: C. Greg Hagerty <HAGERTY at RUTGERS>
To:   rcarter at RU-GREEN, rohlfs at RU-GREEN, laird at RU-GREEN,
      munoz at RU-GREEN, joseph at RU-GREEN, tobin at RU-GREEN,
      borkman at RU-GREEN, newcomb at RU-GREEN, gilroy at RU-GREEN,
      gaal at RU-GREEN, Albin at RU-GREEN, Boehm at RU-GREEN,
      Cretsinger at RU-GREEN, furman at RU-GREEN, horn at RU-GREEN,
      josh at RU-GREEN, latzko at RU-GREEN, naberschnig at RU-GREEN,
      pichnarczyk at RU-GREEN, silber at RU-GREEN, laidlaw at RU-GREEN
Re:   [animal@mit-ml: do not break this chain or your machine may crash]

Mail-from: ARPANET site MIT-AI rcvd at 13-Feb-82 1416-EST
Date: 13 February 1982 13:55-EST
From: animal@mit-ml
Sender: ANIMAL at MIT-AI
Subject: do not break this chain or your machine may crash
To: ANIMAL at MIT-AI, jc40 at CMU-10B, raibert at CMU-20C,
    morguee at CMU-20C, white at CIT-20, docke at CIT-20,
    saffen at CIT-20, erik at CIT-20, tfalk at CIT-20,
    johnson at RUTGERS, rsmith at RUTGERS
cc: operator at SCRC-TENEX, operator at SU-SCORE, operator at AMES-11,
    system at CIT-20, f-s at CIT-20, operator at RUTGERS,
    f-s at RUTGERS


Date: 10 Feb 1982 1937-EST
From: Randy Haskins <uc.RGH>
Subject: Pass it on
To: nessus, uc.pws, uc.vark, uc.b, cat.trivi, ls.zaphod, g.hammy, ls.wjn
cc: uc.wjn, pao, ls.betsy, g.wjn, e.cheese
Remailed-date: 12 Feb 1982 1217-EST
Remailed-from: J. Scott Hamilton <G.HAMMY at MIT-EECS>
Remailed-to: eric at MIT-EECS, jis at MIT-EECS, jaf at MIT-EECS,
    g.mel at MIT-EECS, jsol at MIT-EECS, ls.bigmac at MIT-EECS
Remailed-date: 12 Feb 1982 1416-EST
Remailed-from: Joe Frisbie <JAF>
Remailed-to: cl, uc.mike, g.wmh, g.sa, jtw, e.peggy, uc.mp, jsl, uc.jon,
    net.hsc, dcp, ls.uni, rz at MIT-MC, uc.tek, rll, aychu at MIT-AI,
    shawn at MIT-DMS, uc.rdz, uc.plj, uc.rpk
Remailed-date: 12 Feb 1982 2257-EST
Remailed-from: Jon A. Rochlis <Uc.Jon>
Remailed-to: EECS-Hackers: ;
Remailed-date: 12 Feb 1982 2300-EST
Remailed-from: J. Scott Hamilton <G.HAMMY at MIT-EECS>
Remailed-to: Wizards: ;
Remailed-date: 12 Feb 1982 2351-EST

Trust in the LORD with all your heart and HE will acknowledge
and HE will light the way.


This prayer has been sent to you for good luck.  The original 
copy is from the Netherlands.  It has been around the world
nine times.  The luck has now been brought to you.  You will 
receive good luck within four days of receiving this letter, 
provided in turn, you send it back out.  DO NOT SEND MONEY, FOR
FAITH HAS NO PRICE.  Do not keep this letter.  It must leave your
hands within 96 hours after you receive it.  An RAF officer
received $70,000.  Joe Ellito received $450,000 and lost it
because he broke the chain.  While in the Phillipines, General
Welch lost his wife four days after he received this letter.  He
failed to circulate the prayer.  However, before his death, he 
received $775,000.  Please send 20 copies and see what happens
to you on the fourth day.  This chain comes from Venezuela, and
was written by Saul Anthony deOziof, a missionary from South
America.  I, myself, forward it to you.  Since the chain must
make the tour of the world, you must make 20 identical copies
to this one.  Sned it to your friends, parents, or associates.
After a few days you will get a suprise.  This is true even 
if you are not superstitious.  Take note of the following. 
Constantine Dino received the chain in 1953.  He asked 
his secretary to make 20 copies and send them.  A few days later,
he won a lottery for $2,000,000 in his country.  Carlo Caditt,
an office employee, received the chain.  He forgot it and a few
days later he lost his job.  He found the chain letter and sent
it to 20 people.  Five days later he got an even better job.
Dolon Fairchild received the chain and not believing it, threw 
it away.  Nine days later he died.  For no reason whatsoever should 
this chain be broken.  Remember, SEND NO MONEY.


Please do not ignore this.  IT WORKS!
-------
- - - - End forwarded message - - - -




------- End of Forwarded Message
17-Mar-82 22:42:14-PST,742;000000000001  
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 15-Feb-82 2352-PST
Date: 15 Feb 1982 2338-PST
From: Richard Furuta <Furuta at WASHINGTON>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1693  Re: Nominee for most amazing message ever seen
To: mo at LBL-UNIX, msggroup at MIT-ML
cc: Furuta at WASHINGTON
In-Reply-To: Your message of 15-Feb-82 1619-PST

Now, I am *sure* that it's cheating to send the message to a mailing
list.  I wouldn't plan on winning the Readers' Digest Sweepstakes...

It seems to me that this message presents an excellent opportunity to
study the sociology of the net.  For example, we could see who gets the
most copies of the message and determine the paths that the message took
from its source to its destination.

			--Rick
-------

17-Mar-82 22:42:14-PST,704;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 16-Feb-82 0017-PST
Date: 15 Feb 1982 2353-PST
Sender: GEOFF at SRI-CSL
Subject: MSGGROUP#1694  Re: Nominee for most amazing message ever seen
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow
Reply-To: Geoff at SRI-CSL
To: Furuta at WASHINGTON
Cc: mo at LBL-UNIX, msggroup at MIT-ML
Message-ID: <[SRI-CSL]15-Feb-82 23:53:41.GEOFF>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 15 Feb 1982 2338-PST

Put me down for about 7 or 8 copies of the msg over the 3 day
weekend.

I hava msg which I think is considerably "more amazing" than that
one, but it contains a phrase or two which would not be
appropriate for blanket public distribution.  Contact me if you'd
like a copy.

17-Mar-82 22:42:14-PST,781;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 16-Feb-82 0040-PST
Date: 16 Feb 1982 0015-PST
Sender: STEF at DARCOM-KA
Subject: MSGGROUP#1695  Re: Nominee for most amazing message ever seen
From: STEF at DARCOM-KA
To: Furuta at WASHINGTON
Cc: mo at LBL-UNIX, msggroup at MIT-ML
Message-ID: <[DARCOM-KA]16-Feb-82 00:15:22.STEF>
In-Reply-To: Your message of 15 Feb 1982 2338-PST

Well, I expect I will lose on quantity.  I only have 3 so far.

I wonder how long it will take to saturate the net.  There are
only 20,000 or so mailboxes and that won't last long with
multipliers like MsgGroup, et al!

Interesting that this should arise just as we got into a
discussion of junk mail in my Computer Network Mail course that I
am teaching at UCI this term.

Cheers - Stef

17-Mar-82 22:42:14-PST,1828;000000000001
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 16-Feb-82 0930-PST
Date: 16 February 1982 0346-EST (Tuesday)
From: Philip L. Lehman <Philip.Lehman at CMU-10A> 
To: msggroup at mit-ai
Subject: MSGGROUP#1696  Amazing messages, part 2
Message-Id: <16Feb82 034626 PL30@CMU-10A>

This "data-compressed version" shouldn't be missed.  The number of disk
blocks potentially consumed by the chain letter is amazing.  For
example, I have 8 copies, so far....

				Philip

- - - - Begin forwarded message - - - -
Date: 14 Feb 1982 17:01:48-EST
From: Tom.Rodeheffer at CMU-780G at CMU-10A
To: rodeheffer@cmua
Subject: Pass it on! (data-compressed version)
Origin:  N900EN0M at CMU-10A; 14 Feb 1982 1704-EST
Remailed-To: Lawrence Butcher at CMU-10A, Craig Everhart at CMU-10A,
             Dave Touretzky at CMU-10A, Aaron Wohl at CMU-10A,
             Pradeep Sindhu at CMU-10A, Mike Kazar at CMU-10A,
             David Lamb at CMU-10A, David McDonald at CMU-10A,
             James Saxe at CMU-10A, Steven Shafer at CMU-10A
Remailed-From: Thomas Rodeheffer at CMU-10A (C410TR30)
Remailed-Date: Sunday, 14 February 1982 1711-EST
Via:     C410TR30 at CMU-10A; 14 Feb 1982 1711-EST
Remailed-To: Philip Lehman at CMU-10A
Remailed-From: Craig Everhart at CMU-10A
Remailed-Date: Sunday, 14 February 1982 1938-EST
Via:     C410CE10 at CMU-10A; 14 Feb 1982 1938-EST


TitLwayhaHwa
aHwltw


TphbstyfglTo
ciftNIhbatw
ntTlhnbbtyYw
rglwfdortl
pitysiboDNSMF
FHNPDnktlImly
hw9hayriARo
r$JEr$ali
bhbtcWitPG
WlhwfdahrtlH
ftctpHbhdh
r$Ps2caswh
tyotfdTccfVa
wwbSAdamfS
AImfityStcm
mttotwymm2ic
ttoSityfpoa
AafdywgasTite
iyansTnotf
CDrtci1Ha
hstm2castAfdl
hwalf$ihcCC
aoertcHfiaaf
dlhlhjHftclas
it2pFdlhgaebj
DFrtcanbit
iaNdlhdFnrws
tcbbRSNM


PdnitIW
-
- - - - End forwarded message - - - -


17-Mar-82 22:42:14-PST,656;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 17-Feb-82 0409-PST
Date:  16 February 1982 16:50 est
From:  Charles Hornig at MIT-Multics
Subject: MSGGROUP#1697  your chain mail
Sender:  Hornig.Multics at MIT-Multics
To:  DCP at MIT-MC, mo at LBL-UNIX
cc:  MSGGROUP at MIT-AI, SIPB at MIT-MC
Message-ID:  <820216215015.378785 at MIT-Multics>

Not all of us were amused by this piece of mail.  I consider it
offensive, especially the implied death threat towards the end.  This
sort of thing is illegal in paper mail, perhaps with good reason.

This brings up some interesting issues in how to avoid receiving
obnoxious or annoying computer mail.


17-Mar-82 22:42:14-PST,1405;000000000001   
Mail-from: ARPANET host MIT-ML rcvd at 17-Feb-82 0429-PST
Date: 17 February 1982 00:22-EST
From: Ed Schwalenberg <ED at MIT-AI>
Subject: MSGGROUP#1698  Obnoxious chain mail
To: Charles Hornig at MIT-MULTICS
cc: MSGGROUP at MIT-AI, mo at LBL-UNIX, DCP at MIT-MC, SIPB at MIT-MC

    Date:  16 February 1982 16:50 est
    From:  Charles Hornig at MIT-Multics
    This brings up some interesting issues in how to avoid receiving
    obnoxious or annoying computer mail.
You can avoid receiving obnoxious or annoying computer mail by having
an artificially-intelligent program read your mail and filter out stuff
it knows you would consider obnoxious or annoying.  Such filters exist
already for hardware mail; they are called "secretaries."

In this regard, computer mail is no different from hardware mail, and no
different from any other communications:  it's possible to avoid stuff
you consider unpleasant, but only by incurring large costs (such as
hiring a secretary, writing an AI program, or not participating in
communication).  The way I deal with it is to derive enjoyment from my
reaction to unpleasant communications:  feeling smug about hanging up on
a salesman, or enjoying the release of ripping to shreds an unopened
envelope whose exterior advertises its worthlessness, or typing the
delete command to the mail reader upon seeing the From: field of the
message.

17-Mar-82 22:42:14-PST,1317;000000000000 
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-8 rcvd at 1-Mar-82 0049-PST
Return-path: Postel@ISIF
Date:  27 Feb 1982 1853-PST
From:  Postel at ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1699  RFC 808 Now Available
To:  "Request-for-Comments-Notification-List":
Redistributed-To: stef at DARCOM-KA
Redistributed-By: STEFFERUD at OFFICE-8
Redistributed-Date:  1 Mar 1982


      A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in 
      the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

      RFC 808:

         Title:   Summary of Computer Mail Services Meeting
                  Held at BBN on 10 January 1979
         Author:  J. Postel
         Pages :  8

            pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC808.TXT

         This memo summarizes a meeting held three years ago to discuss 
         computer mail services.  The main result is an agreement to 
         limit further development of the existing mail service and to 
         begin work on a new substantially different mail service.

      Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at 
      SRI-NIC via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

      Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list 
      should be sent to NIC@SRI-NIC.  Submissions for RFCs should be 
      sent to POSTEL@ISIF.

      --jon.

17-Mar-82 22:42:14-PST,1027;000000000000 
Mail-from: ARPANET host OFFICE-8 rcvd at 4-Mar-82 1954-PST
Date: 2 Mar 1982 1026-PST
Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
Subject: MSGGROUP#1700  RFC809 now available
From: WESTINE at USC-ISIF
To: "[ISIF]<Westine>Request-for-Comments.List":
Message-ID: <[USC-ISIF] 2-Mar-82 10:26:55.WESTINE>

A new RFC is now available from the Network Information Center in the 
NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC.

RFC 809:

   Title:   UCL FACSIMILE SYSTEM
   Author:  Tawei Chang
   Pages :  93

      pathname: [SRI-NIC]<NETINFO>RFC809.TXT

   This RFC describes the Facsimile programs and facilities developed at
   University College, London.  This includes some very modular and 
   flexible procedures for manipulating bit-map data.

Public access files may be copied from the NETINFO directory at SRI-NIC 
via FTP with username ANONYMOUS and password GUEST.

Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list should be
sent to NIC@SRI-NIC.  Submissions for RFCs should be sent to 
POSTEL@ISIF.

--jon.