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..

Michael Crawford (mcrawford@iready.com)
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:36:44 -0800

I like the idea of only watermarking GSTN pages. Again the concern is legal
documents...maybe this is a small segment of the market and thus is not all
that important...I'd have to look at that. Maybe a legal eagle could tell
us how SMTP and IPP transactions would be viewed in terms of "traceability"
and "responsibility"... The rest is just a matter of software :)

Mike Crawford
iReady Corporation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [SMTP:dwing@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 5:40 PM
> To: Michael Crawford
> Cc: Richard Shockey; ifx@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..
> 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
> 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