[OT] Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

MFPA expires2011 at ymail.com
Sat May 7 21:36:47 CEST 2011

Hash: SHA512


On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 6:42:06 PM, in
<mid:BANLkTi=-c_xijTNE7+qyrLv06fJ2d7zDig at mail.gmail.com>, Jerome Baum

> Hey not that any of this relates to the original
> question on digital signatures, but interesting
> nonetheless so I guess let's keep it on the list as OT.

Since (like any other legal document) the date on a cheque is deemed
to be the date of the signature, it is a non-digital analogy to the
discussion about signature dates.

> In that case we had a different understanding. Checks
> aren't common over here and I never saw a post-dated
> check -- which I assumed is a check that is meant to be
> available after a certain date -- not a check that is
> signed incorrectly.

You are entirely correct in your assumption.

>> A friend who worked at a bank said they never looked
>> at the dates, but cashed them when presented unless
>> there were insufficient funds to honor them.

That failure to correctly scrutinise is fairly common, and often
allows people to cash cheques that have expired.

> It seems here that people who write "post-dated" checks
> the way you describe them don't quite understand what
> that particular date means (or I misunderstood you).
> What you describe is the signature date, and that date
> is *supposed* to be the date when you signed it. Using
> a different date is lying

A cheque is an instruction to your bank to pay an amount of money to
somebody if they present it for payment within six months of the date
it was signed. In order to instruct the bank to pay within six months
from a future date, you are simply preparing in advance an instruction
effective from that future date. The date on the cheque is the date
from which the signature is effective. It is non-standard but was very
common when cheques were in widespread use. There is no lying, fraud
or deception involved.

> , but as you say it won't be
> prosecuted unless there is intended fraud or actual
> damage.

It is not illegal here, or even unlawful. I have heard of it being
banned elsewhere but never heard a credible rationale as to why the
practice should not be allowed.

> At my bank, I left clear
> instructions

Giving clear instructions to a bank is usually a waste of time. They
generally fail to carry them out correctly, in my experience.

- --
Best regards

MFPA                    mailto:expires2011 at ymail.com

A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list