🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40888@think.Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
> In article <J.R4CDA@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >In article <40713@think.Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
> >> The days are long gone when we should expect ordinary users to type
> >> "addresses" into their mail system user interfaces.

> >I really don't see why E-mail addresses need be any more complex than
> >phone-numbers, or street addresses at the worst.

> Because email addresses have to be processed by computers, and used for
> looking up information in a worldwide distributed database, and intended to
> specify a particular person and even a specific choice of the roles the
> person plays.

What is a "person" or "role" in the context of a mail system? It's just a
mailbox. A "container" that messages are put in. Whether it's
"peter@ferranti.com" or "Postmaster@ferranti.com" it still gets to me.

> On the other hand, street addresses are processed by humans.

Right, and this allows them to be *more complex* than prone numbers or email
addresses. Computers need a simpler designation for a mailbox: they're not very
good at the sort of free association needed to deliver mail to "MOBY, HOUSTON,
TEXAS" to a particular radio personality.

> And phone
> numbers don't get you to a particular person, they just get you to a phone
> -- you still have to ask whoever answers "May I speak to so-and-so?".

And email doesn't get you to a particular person, either. It just gets you to
a mailbox. And that's true for UUCP path mail, DNS mail, or X.400 mail.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
<peter@ficc.ferranti.com>