IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> Sender URI Stamp

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> Sender URI Stamp

RE: IFX> Sender URI Stamp

From: Rick Seeler (rseeler@adobe.com)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 15:50:21 EST

  • Next message: Gail Songer: "RE: IFX> Sender URI Stamp"

    A digital Signature gives you a tamper-proof way to time-stamp a document,
    but besides that...
    What about using the information in the "Document Information Dictionary"
    (See Table 9.2 in the PDF Reference 1.4)? This dictionary is already part
    of the PDF/is spec. and should be all that is needed. Of course, it's not
    tamper proof unless the document is also digitally signed.
    Is this what you were looking for?

    -----Original Message-----
    From: owner-ifx@pwg.org [mailto:owner-ifx@pwg.org] On Behalf Of Gail Songer
    Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:11 PM
    To: ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: IFX> Sender URI Stamp



    It's occurred to me that with PDF we have level of portability that we
    didn't have before. However the IFX spec requires that the sender add the
    URI of the sender:


    The Sender MUST place the Sender's URI, i.e., the value of the

    "sender-uri" attribute (see section 8.3), along with the date

    and time, in one of the following places, DEPENDING ON


    1. On a cover page automatically generated by the Sender that is sent
    before the rest of the document.

    2. Merged with the first page of the document.

    3. At the top of every page of the sent Document.

    The Sender MAY include additional data (Sending User, Receiver

    identity, etc.). As for regular FAX, it is RECOMMENDED that

    this information be represented as bit map data, so that it is

    more difficult for it to be modified before it gets to the




    My first thought was to add an optional field to the PDF that indicated
    where the Stamp was located. If the doc was resent, then the second sender
    could replace the Stamp with its own stamp. But if the doc was digitally
    signed then either the Signature would be lost or invalidated.


    Anything thoughts on how we should handle this?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 15:52:46 EST