8 ms·

I don't know about your country, but in mine (The Netherlands), it is a completely and utterly valid way to enter a contract. Actually, you are free to enter a

• schoen 6y ago
  In the U.S., many contracts (but not all) can in principle by default be oral and still be enforceable by law. https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/what-contracts-are-required-to-be-in-writing.html https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/w...
  • shinigami 6y ago
    So... no need for DKIM
    • tonyztan 6y ago
      But you need to be able to prove the existence of the contract. Which DKIM would help with.
      • shinigami 6y ago
        Then digitally sign it. Sign and scan it. Do not require signing every single email you send to protect 0,1% of them.
• anticristi 6y ago
  Same in Sweden. "Are you okey with paying extra for X?" "Yes, please go ahead." And that's how a new contract gets signed! No need to fly someone 1500km just for that.
  • shinigami 6y ago
    Sure. So why do we need DKIM to authenticate contracts?
    • baobabKoodaa 6y ago
      Because, without DKIM, a dishonest party can repudiate the email. Just as a written contract is superior to an oral contract, a non repudiable written contract is superior to a repudiable written contract.
      • shinigami 6y ago
        So maybe digitally sign the contracts instead of unwillingly sign every single email you send?
        • baobabKoodaa 6y ago
          Please explain how I can make a webshop like amazon digitally sign a contract?
          • shinigami 6y ago
            Why do you need Amazon to digitally sign a contract?
            • baobabKoodaa 6y ago
              Was something unclear in my previous answer, when you asked the exact same thing and I answered your question?
              • shinigami 6y ago
                You didn't answer it. In which scenario Amazon would deny sending an email and you would be protected by DKIM?
• shinigami 6y ago
  It's still a terrible idea...