That's an interesting thought, but I doubt it matters much in practice. I mean, we don't refuse to admit into evidence a ransom note just because the criminal d

That's an interesting thought, but I doubt it matters much in practice. I mean, we don't refuse to admit into evidence a ransom note just because the criminal didn't get it notarized. And that's all that SSL is doing, is acting as that notary. The jury can still decide that they think other evidence pointing to the message's origin is sufficient proof.