IFX Mail Archive: RE: Questions to be addressed...

RE: Questions to be addressed...

Michael Crawford (mcrawford@iready.com)
Thu, 25 Mar 1999 10:14:45 -0800

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Zehler, Peter: "RE: Word docs"
Previous message: Michael Crawford: "RE: Questions to be addressed..."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Webb [SMTP:nwebb@auco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 3:00 PM
> To: rshockey@ix.netcom.com
> Cc: mcrawford@iready.com; ifx@pwg.org
> Subject: RE: Questions to be addressed...
>
-- SNIP--
> >> A point-to-point fax call does not have any more validity than an
> >>email between two parties.
> >
> >In the general case maybe but ...
> >Not true in many Judicial Districts (California, Wyoming etc) where
> >there
> are specific rules on fax that do not apply to e mail transactions >etc.
> also GSA rules on bid submissions etc.
>
> Right, and many lawyers I've dealt with (here in CA) are happy to fax me
> something but rarely agree to email me anything important. It's part of
> that unmodifiable requirement Richard mentioned earlier.
>
*** I see your point on "unmodifiable". I guess I need to bone up
on VCARD and see
how this applies...I thought VCARD only authenticated my signature,
not the content of
my message...

Next message: Zehler, Peter: "RE: Word docs"
Previous message: Michael Crawford: "RE: Questions to be addressed..."