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

[Jerome Baum]

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 22:38, MFPA <expires2011 at ymail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 8:50:45 PM, in
> <mid:BANLkTi=Tg4Z7MkwTNZtwLHpjmHfFznwH3A at mail.gmail.com>, Jerome Baum
> wrote:
>
>
> > 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
> > date.
>
> Lying *is* deception. And your words "unless there is intended fraud"
> appeared to me to be a reference to fraud.
>

So, you are now talking about appearances and intentions? Also, since when
is this a list where we discuss writing style? Didn't you say "Jerome Baum
wrote" above? I think you get my point.


> 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.
>

I would trust the fine print over any of these versions. That's what I meant
with banks being incompetent.  I might read through my fine print later to
find out. If I do, I'll post here.

-- 
Jerome Baum

tel +49-1578-8434336
email jerome at jeromebaum.com
-- 
PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110507/cf9570a9/attachment.htm>