Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!adobe!heaven!glenn
From: glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: signatures in PostScript
Keywords: PostScript  signatures   bitmaps   cleverness
Message-ID: <431@heaven.woodside.ca.us>
Date: 23 Feb 91 21:26:29 GMT
References: <7697@dayton.UUCP> <1ggoX1w163w@phoenix.com>
Reply-To: glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us (Glenn Reid)
Organization: RightBrain Software, Woodside, CA
Lines: 30

In article <1ggoX1w163w@phoenix.com> stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes:
>jad@dayton.UUCP (J. Deters) writes:

>> I, for one, would be ecstatic to have my initials and/or signature available
>> for inclusion on memos that go out.  If someone would post Don's "digitizing
>> method", I'd be most grateful.
>
>   Doesn't this eliminate the value of a signature altogether? Why not
>just include your initials (in ASCII)? Once your signature is available
>in machine readable form, it is meaningless, as there is no way of
>telling if it is a forgery or not.

You miss the point.  The signature isn't being used for authentication
purposes like signing checks.  It's being used to write a form letter
to a zillion customers, where forgery is a non-issue.

I suppose that once the signature is available it could be used for
unauthorized things, but only if digitized signatures are accepted in
such contexts, which it seems they might not be.  Although, as I
think about it, I've seen digitized signatures on payroll checks in
companies where there are a *lot* of checks written every month.

Anyway, I think that lots of people use digitized signatures for lots
of purposes, and authentication isn't really the point.

Glenn
-- 
 Glenn Reid				RightBrain Software
 glenn@heaven.woodside.ca.us		NeXT/PostScript developers
 ..{adobe,next}!heaven!glenn		415-851-1785 (fax 851-1470)