🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1CE00001.qhffxx@tbomb.ice.com> time@ice.com writes:
>
>In article <360@alchemy.UUCP>, hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) writes:
>> I have heard, though, that these numbers need to be in magnetic ink, which 
>> precious few laserwriters handle.  My question now concerns if the check 
>> *needs* this magnetic ink in order to be legally useable.  I do not see why it 
>
>It is absolutely true that most banks require magnetic ink on the
>checks that they process. On the other hand, banks are required to
>cash all checks written against their bank.

I'm sorry for following up here with this, however...

I believe the purpose of the magnetic ink at the bottom of your check is
to simplify the bank's job of processing the large volume of checks most
banks must process in a given day.  The magnetic ink does not make the
check a legal document, nor do all checks get successfully read in by
the processing automation.

'Nuf said.

Anyways, if you all are going to go out there and start printing your own
checks, remind me never to send you a check on my account for payment to you,
as it's just too easy nowadays for anyone with a laserprinter and a little
spare time (especially if they've done most of the work making their own
checks) to simply copy my account number to the bottom of their check.  And
as only a small fraction of the checks processed ever have the signature
verified against the signature on file, I'd be a bit worried about the
possibilites of forgery.

Flames to /dev/null.

						-- Bill

-- 
	William Edward Woody		   | Disclamer:
USNAIL	P.O.Box 50986; Pasadena, CA 91115  |
EMAIL	woody@tybalt.caltech.edu	   | The useful stuff in this message
ICBM	34 08' 44''N x 118 08' 41''W	   | was only line noise.