> So? It's useful for systems that understand them. It's not
> about laws, it's about practice -- you want to be able to check
> whether the message has been sent by the person whom it claims to
> be sent by.
Digital Signatures, still aren't even understood my most mua's and until it is
enforced globally not even 100% of the US machines will support it.
> I think it should be defined as "in transit". The use's MUA has
> sent the message already. Often, the tampering (adding
> disclaimers and such) is done on the mail hub, after it has
> already left the sender's machine. No matter if it's Windoze or
> UNIX. What would you say if the local post office were adding
> disclaimers to your paper mail?
Umm check the Codes for what the Law defines as "In Transit", here in
Canada for example the definition of Telecommunication is:
means any transsmisison, emission or rectption of signs, signals, writing,
images, or sound or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, visual, or other
electro-magnetic system. Though not a good example, they may not define
it as you would hope, it may or may not include the first MTA, the message
is sent to. Again I think again the best idea is still what is being used today
with PGP (and if you can find it in use PEM) in which it signs the body. But
which company will be the unlucky sap, to handle all the keys.
But umm the postoffice does modify your your snailmail every day,
remember they cancel your stamp, and put barcodes on it
> > Yes...although in the corporate environment that's probably not an issue: the
> > company probably already is liable for what its employees send out. (Depending
> > on national law.)
>
> And for what they say on the phone to their friends while at
> work. Give me a break, eh?
Actually umm if I remember there has been a few cases in the US in this
matter. And don't forget Insider Trading laws, etc.
---
Jason Robertson
Network Analyst
jason@???
http://www.astroadvice.com
