<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ok,<br>
I have to agree here. IF my simple fax server log/tiff archive is
not enough to satisfy a client that the fax is genuine I would not want
them as my customer. I don't care how much money they spend. Business
is business and what I do is what I do. There has to be at least a
little bit of trust between me and my clients otherwise we spend too
much time bickering about stuff. Have you ever tried to bill
"b*tch-time"?<br>
I have worked in "High-CYA" positions before and refuse to have that in
my current company.<br>
<br>
Aloha,<br>
<br>
Mark C<br>
<br>
Scott Gifford wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="midly64kla8ep.fsf@gfn.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I don't see the advantage to this; the client still has to trust that
all of this is done correctly, and if they don't trust the fax
recipient to put the correct fax in the paper file or keep the correct
TIFF, why would they trust them to do this?
Using a third party to receive and relay the fax, one which is trusted
by both the client and the fax recipient, would solve the problem; the
third party could create a document with the caller information
(ideally from ANI, which is harder to forge), the time, and the
message itself, then digitally sign it. This might even be an
interesting business plan, for some applications where confirmed
document transmittal is important.
But it's hard for me to imagine this isn't overkill; if a client and a
service provider distrust each other so thoroughly that they have to
communicate through a third party to verify integrity, probably they
just shouldn't do business with each other.
----Scott.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>