mcrawford@iready.com on 02/04/99 16:47:56
To: dwing@cisco.com, rshockey@ix.netcom.com
cc: ifx@pwg.org (bcc: Nick Webb/AUCO/US)
Subject: RE: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..
Isn't the issue a legal requirement in some states and some
countries...i.e. page 1 of ... and who originated the document.? If this
is the case, then
the user benefits from a watermark, assuming
this kind of data is part of that watermark. And may be in fact required
to have the watermark for the document to be useable for any number of
transactions. Or did I miss something? (ignorance is bliss?)
Mike Crawford
iReady Corporation
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [SMTP:dwing@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 3:39 PM
> To: Richard Shockey
> Cc: ifx@pwg.org
> Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:12:39 -0600, Richard Shockey wrote:
>
> > Everyone might be interested in this thread from the IFAX list ...I was
> > trying to clarify the status of the fax "watermark" in IFAX
> transactions.
> >
> > In GSTN the _sender_ inserts this into the TIFF incoded image.
>
> Nit: In GSTN fax there is no TIFF encoded image.
>
> Actually, in GSTN fax, the sender inserts a watermark onto transmitted
> pages.
>
> In IPP the sender is already identified, so I don't believe an
> IFX-compliant sender needs to incur the overhead of generating a per-page
> watermark -- other mechanisms exist in IPP (and SMTP for the ifax case)
to > identify the IFX sender.
>
> Not to mention that multiple hops, each identifying themselves by
> slightly occluding the top of each page cause degradation -- something
> that need not occur (and is not expected by users to occur) with digital
> documents and digital transmission.
>
> -Dan Wing