On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 15:54, MFPA <expires2...@ymail.com> wrote: > (snip huge email) >
Next time can you read the whole email and reply to it as a whole? As for signature checking, I stand by my point: Over here, signing a document today and claiming on the signature that it was signed tomorrow is going to be an offense (if there is a loss to a third party, of course -- a lie isn't fraud until there is damage). The post-dated cheque doesn't say "I signed this in the future", but "only accept this from that point in the future". That's a big difference. As for the clerk, he's an idiot and probably liable for accepting it. It's not my problem if people don't check the signature timestamp, I can only do my part on making the date accurate -- plus maybe educating my recipient on checking the timestamp. As for the "expert" witness, you can bring in an expert to claim anything. That doesn't change the facts and isn't relevant to this argument. You assumption on what a court would decide is the kind of assumption you said I can't make -- which, as Hauke points out, I didn't. As for months vs. years, I wanted a clear example. Doesn't really make a difference -- 1304780513 is different from 1304780514, and also different from 1404780513. What's your point? That the guy checking my signature is being careless by only checking the year? See the clerk point above. -- Jerome Baum tel +49-1578-8434336 email jer...@jeromebaum.com -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
