LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for CMPLAW-L Archives


CMPLAW-L Archives

CMPLAW-L Archives


CMPLAW-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CMPLAW-L Home

CMPLAW-L Home

CMPLAW-L  June 1998

CMPLAW-L June 1998

Subject:

Re: Dear list members...

From:

Timothy Arnold-Moore <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Internet and Computer Law Association <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:44:02 +1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (48 lines)

Mikus Grinbergs wrote:

> The first problem that comes to mind is that there is NO GUARANTEE
> WHATSOEVER of delivery of email.  Email messages can be mis-routed,
> accidentally deleted, even destroyed deliberately when a resource
> overload occurs.

There are plenty of protocols for ensuring delivery, but most only
assure delivery to a particular machine, not that the message is
actually read by the intended recipient.

> The internet mail mavens _are_ working on mechanisms to "notify" of
> delivery of email.  But that will require changes to the existing
> email software, both at the receiving end and at the sending end.
> (And what if it is the "notification" that gets lost?)

This is a common problem in communications protocols.
Once a notification has been received and a confirmation that the
notification is received, if the protocol loses a later confirmation of
a confirmation, both ends still know that the message was sent and
received and that both ends know that it was sent and received.

> p.s.  The second problem is that it is trivial to create a "fake"
>       email message.  Unless unbreakable "authentication" is used,
>       the recipient doesn't actually know _who_ composed it.

One could say exactly the same about paper documents. How do you know
that a standard letter was sent by the person claiming to have sent it?
In actual fact, potentially e-mail can be more reliable than paper
documents if double encryption with sender and recipient public and
private keys is used (the normal method for ensuring either the origin
or the destination or both of e-mail).

That is why courts generally require extra evidence of the history of a
document before admitting it into evidence. The question to determine is
what standard is appropriate for e-mail? Is there a level of encryption
that is sufficiently strong to remove the need to put someone in the
stand to confirm the origin of the e-mail?

--
| Tim Arnold-Moore, LL.B., B.Sc. (Hons)
| Postal address:  Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT
|                  723 Swanston St
|                  Carlton 3053
|                  AUSTRALIA
| Tel:          +61 3 9282 2487
| Fax:          +61 3 9282 2490
|       simul iustus et peccator

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2005
August 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
November 2001
October 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
April 2001
March 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
June 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager