This isn't to start any arguments, it's just an FYI...I noticed that when I worked for a bank, many banks would only allow other banks to call to verify funds. What this meant was, I'd have customers calling me who in turn had customers who were growing *very* impatient because they had written a personal check, who had to wait for the clerk to call to verify funds, spend 10 minutes on hold for bookkeeping only to find that the bank they were calling only allows other banks to verify funds, who then had to wait for the clerk to call the company's bank to call the other bank to sit on hold another 10 minutes for bookkeeping only to have the bookkeeper try to weasel his/her way out of doing any work by disputing the fact that you worked for a bank, blah, blah, blah.

What's the point? Maybe some of us don't want to have to go into debt just to buy groceries, and don't want to carry buttloads of cash on us all of the time. With banks charging ridiculous fees to keep *your* money in a checking account, where's the big incentive?

I say we go back to a barter system

Mike

---------- From: gimonca@skypoint.com[SMTP:gimonca@skypoint.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 1996 12:57 AM To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards? (fwd)

People on the list could probably come up with much better ways to authenticate a reputation. Until then, for personal checks, you can call any bank in the U.S., ask for bookkeeping, and ask them if there are funds in the bank to cover the check you're holding. Any bank should give you a yes or no on this. Some banks, like the First Banks here in Minnesota, will do this through their automated telephone banking services, 24 hours.