Hello Dwight, On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:24:47 -0500 GMT (23/06/2005, 06:24 +0700 GMT), Dwight A Corrin wrote:
DAC> By this logic, we should get rid of pens, because someday someone DAC> might use one to commit a forgery. I cannot imagine that an issue of DAC> the foundation of an email is ever going to come down to whether or DAC> not one can prove that it is impossible to change the contents of any DAC> message in that software. If it did, then the foundation would not be DAC> any good for messages in TB! either, because whenever any ever DAC> broaches this topic, someone explains how if one wants to edit DAC> messages badly enough, and doesn't mind going the long route instead DAC> of being able to do it conveniently, one can always export the message DAC> to some other piece of software, make the changes and import it back. True. I believe an email is only admissable in court if the sender and receiver have the same contents on their computers. Or at least an en-route server (Carnivore comes to mind). The print-out from the receiver's computer alone cannot hold up in court due to what you have just mentioned. The discussion is only whether TB should allow editing internally, or whether we need to export, edit, import. Just a convenience question, not a legal one. -- Cheers, Thomas. Hairdressing while you wait. (Seen at a Dublin hairdresser's) Message reply created with The Bat! 3.5.30 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.5.25 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
