>I'm not aware of any law establishing the legality of fax documents --=
>I believe it is only case law, no? If so, a legal challenge would
>be needed to establish a similar precedent.
but there are regulations such as the State of California "Rules of Cou=
rt" (see
rule 2003 item 6) adopted March 1992.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/1998/titlefive/titlefive.pdf which re=
fers to
a "transmission record" printed by the SENDING device and containing fa=
x number
of receiving machine, number of pages sent and transmission time and da=
te.
Also, from FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PUBLIC NOTICE (31291 / DA =
92-1716)
January 11, 1993
http://www.faximum.com/faqs/fax.questions#Q.11
FCC rules require that each transmission to a telephone facsimile machi=
ne must
clearly contain, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted
page or on the first page of the transmission, (1) the date and time th=
e
transmission is sent (2) the identity of the sender and (3) the telepho=
ne
number of the sender or of the sending machine. All telephone facsimile=
machines manufactured on or after December 20, 1992 must have the capac=
ity
to clearly mark such identifying information on the first page or on ea=
ch page
of the transmission.
While not meant to represent an exhaustive study, these two (laws, regu=
lations,
rules...? whatever)... clearly place requirement for "timestamping" on =
the
'generator", not the receiver. Note, there are margin requirements plac=
ed on
the end device, however.
I agree with trying to follow today's fax paradigm wherever appropriate=
.
Harry Lewis - IBM Printing Systems
=