Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!kippu!kip
From: kip%kippu@Sun.COM (David Kipping)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Let's fix email.  Was: Re: Networks considered harmful
Keywords: email fax
Message-ID: <129472@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 20 Dec 89 17:35:17 GMT
References: <8912190403.AA05387@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1250@toro.UUCP> <6042@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <5803@umd5.umd.edu> <8034@xenna.Xylogics.COM>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: kip@sun.UUCP (David Kipping)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 29

In article <8034@xenna.Xylogics.COM> loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) writes:
>In article <5803@umd5.umd.edu> oleary@umd5.umd.edu (dave o'leary) writes:
>> In article <6042@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) writes:
>> The problem with FAX is that it is by definition, a facsimile of a document.
>
>
>I see `email' (I dislike that term) being the copier-replacing-carbon-paper;
>the FAX has come along and started a revolution.  There's just no (current)
>easy way to get a signed document from here to there using email, without
>extra hardware (over any "standard" PC) and a better user interfaces, etc.
>

One reason that FAX has been accepted so much is that the law in the states
has accepted "signed" documents which are faxed as legally binding. As a result
it has become common place to "exchange" signatures via FAX on multimillion
dollar deals.

One thing holding up email in the business community is that to my understanding,
commitments emailed are not considered binding. What is needed is to raise
the security image of email to make it binding.

I won't bring up the legal implications of sending a FAXed, signed document
over email.

disclaimers()

David Kipping 
kip@sun
(415) 336-1013