🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug6.185356.12032@sei.cmu.edu> weh@sei.cmu.edu (Bill Hefley) writes:

|Ah, yes, but what isn't apparent to the user via the e-mail channel that would
|be immediately visible if they tried to call is that the addressing schemes
|are different. Not only are the schemes different, but the information
|contained within them give you some very interesting insights into he got the
|answer he did.  Here's why:
|
|The e-mail address used was probably something like acmhelp@acmvm.bitnet.
|That points you towards the e-mail receiver for the mail, which happens to be
|an IBM machine (thus the bitnet connection) which happens to be in New York.
|
|Now, if you were to call ACM headquarters, you'd dial +1-212-869-7440. That
|would ring through to the receptionist on the 17th floor, who is also in New
|York. Now, if you follow the instructions given for dialing the ACM Order
|department, the phone number is +1-800-somethingorother OR +1-301-528-4261.
|AHA! The astute user of the phone system has just deciphered :-) using the
|standard phone schema that they are no longer in Kansas, ToTo, and that this
|phone number won't ring through to New York.  In fact, it reaches the ACM
|Order Dept. in Maryland.
|
|So there may be a very good reason for the e-mail reply suggesting checking
|with the ACM Order Dept.

My mailreader has a "forward" command. Yours doesn't? Or perhaps the
person who reads incoming email just isn't ready to take that kind of
initiative?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stephen p spackman                             spackman@dfki.uni-sb.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------