Tony writes: > Are there other reasons for having authenticated, > time-stamped email? I am sure there are many, but > the first I would like to see is the end to the > designation that a fax is acceptable legal evidence, > while email is not. Assuming this statement is true (and it seems to be), what is the key difference between fax and e-mail that makes fax so much more cogent in court? Or is it purely an arbitrary decision? I've always wondered why signatures of ink on paper are binding, whereas digital signatures are not, even though digital signatures are literally billions or trillions of times more difficult to forge. E-mail can be easily forged, but then again, so can a fax. So what's so special about fax?