1995-11-15 - Re: credit card conventional wisdom

Header Data

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
To: hallam@w3.org
Message Hash: 7e4e39df97f939bfc95cf85df950027c5814716397a7919b481e458811e27d4c
Message ID: <9511150243.AA14648@sulphur.osf.org>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-15 16:24:16 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 00:24:16 +0800

Raw message

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 00:24:16 +0800
To: hallam@w3.org
Subject: Re: credit card conventional wisdom
Message-ID: <9511150243.AA14648@sulphur.osf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>There is in fact a distinction between "card present" and "card not present"
>transactions. AMEX cards for example have an extra group of four digits which 
>are not part of the embossed card number. They are used as additional 
>verification to prove that a card is present.

So the run-it-through-the-mechanical-device is treated as card not present?
	/r$





Thread