On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 12:13, Steve Holdoway wrote: > [snip] > > > Nope, email is not new rules. The lawyers will tell you that email can > > be regarded as a legally binding document. > > > > Derek. > > Given that it is practically impossible to *prove* the sender of an email, > and any text editor ( even emacs :) can modify the contents, I really do > doubt that this statement can be valid. > > In extremely controlled circumstances, this may be true, but not without a > lot of handshaking on top of SMTP.
I beg to differ (getting into legal matters oooops). wasnīt there a law passed sometime back that (nick correct if wrong) says in my words... An email / electronic document can be used in a court of law and can be given the same status / weight as a written document (How many times has a written document been used fraudulently??). eg I email you about a service / product that you provide. I make a purchase find that you have said lies (service / product isnīt what I was expecting) i take you to court (be it small claims whatever). During the hearing you make a statement that i can prove is wrong and do so at the appropriate time by producing a copy of the email. this is taken as evidence and accepted as such (even going as far as having a digital copy). as for other proof why not have a request for disposition added to the email as extra proof (ISPīs could also give added authentication to the email could they) ?? if a person takes strong offense to a flame could a law suit occur ?? emails would then be the source of evidence and proof of the accuracy would be the list. (not that i want to do this or know of the cost involved). this is now getting off topic me thinks so i shall pop back into my passive mode. -- Dave Lilley
