[OT] Re: Best practice for periodic key change?
expires2011 at ymail.com
Sat May 7 22:38:48 CEST 2011
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 8:50:45 PM, in
<mid:BANLkTi=Tg4Z7MkwTNZtwLHpjmHfFznwH3A at mail.gmail.com>, Jerome Baum
> We weren't talking about fraud and deception. Only
> about lying -- rather, telling an untruth, which you
> may or may not be doing intentionally. But it is still
> an untruth if the form implies that the date is the
> dated the signature was placed -- rather than an
> instruction to make the amount available after that
Lying *is* deception. And your words "unless there is intended fraud"
appeared to me to be a reference to fraud.
As for the meaning of the date, whether it is supposed to mean the
date the signature was written or the date the instruction to pay
becomes effective or simply the date the cheque is issued to the payee
is unclear to me - and probably varies around the world. UK banks have
told me all three versions at various times. The one I heard
originally (and most often over the years) is the effective date of
the instruction to pay. YMMV.
Are we OT enough yet?
MFPA mailto:expires2011 at ymail.com
During an eruption - move away from the volcano - not towards it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users