IFX Mail Archive: RE: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

IFX Mail Archive: RE: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

RE: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

Dan Wing (dwing@cisco.com)
Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:39:31 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:47:56 -0800, Michael Crawford wrote:

> Isn't the issue a legal requirement in some states and some countries...i.e.
> page 1 of ... and who originated the document.?

It is a legal requirement in the US (and Germany?) that the sender
be identified on the first page or on each page. Richard has the
exact wording.

The legal requirement only exists on a media where spamming is a favorite
sport, and where Caller-ID (identification of the caller) isn't available
everywhere -- in fact, doesn't exist in most places and within most
companies due to their PBXs.

Thus, fax machines, which cannot be assured their users will actually
*use* a coverpage, simply watermark pages that are transmitted over
GSTN.

This is a good thing. And a service to users so that the user isn't
non-compliant with the letter of the (FCC) law.

> If this is the case, then
> the user benefits from a watermark, assuming
> this kind of data is part of that watermark. And may be in fact required to
> have the watermark for the document to be useable for any number of
> transactions. Or did I miss something? (ignorance is bliss?)

But IPP (and SMTP) provide _different_ mechanisms for tracing the
message. In fact, even LPR/LPD provides a different mechanism (IP address
of connection, username of submitter in the LPR data).

What I'm saying is that we should NOT watermark pages unless those
pages are being transmitted over the GSTN. If they're going over SMTP or
IPP then the mechanisms of SMTP should be used (which are adequate) or the
mechanisms of IPP should be used (which I believe are adequate).

-Dan Wing