Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu X-URL:
http://black-ice.cc.vt.edu/~valdis/
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 11:47:37 -0500
From: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis(_at_)black-ice(_dot_)cc(_dot_)vt(_dot_)edu>
On Tue, 07 Nov 1995 18:18:22 PST, you said:
Regarding your scenerio, the burden of proof has to rest on B.
Lack of evidence to the contrary, will most likely constitute as B
cheating. If he really is cheating, then he will be punished. The
judge won't beleive his claim that he did not receive E and A will be
granted whatever the consequences for having the receipt is. The fact
that the judge won't believe B constitutes as B not being able to
repudiate the "message receipt". Lawyers?
Having signed a receipt for EM, B must either make sure he has E, *or* notify
a judge immediately. The receipt is all A needs to prove B received *or* is
capable of receiving the message M. That's all B-CEM is, assuming a trusted
Ouch.
At least with postal mail, if I sign for a "return receipt requested" piece
of mail, all I've signed for is "Yes, I have received *something* from XYZ".
Here, you're certifying that you have received *this exact* something
before you've had a chance to see it.
All you need now is a smart lawyer, and a "something" that starts off with
"As agreed in our previous telephone conversations..."
Will failure to immediately contact a judge be held as tacit agreement with
the contents of the message? We had better be sure we understand *exactly*
what the legalistic semantics are here...
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Engineer
Virginia Tech