Talk:Electronic Postmark

The electronic postmark is a new technology that is being implemented by ePostmarks, Inc. to bring trust back to emails. There is little information about this new development, but this is a major effort being pursued by many companies and is important for people to understand because they will be widely affected by this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbanker (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 December 2006 UTC

Merge to Timestamp discussion
DO NOT MERGE: The electronic postmark is NOT merely a timestamp. merging the two entries would detract from the concept of the Electronic postmark and digital postmarks in general.Sbanker 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbanker (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 December 2006 UTC


 * In part, the Timestamp article covers secure digital timestamps. In what way does an electronic postmark differ from a secure digital timestamp, other than being offered by a postal authority? --Gerry Ashton 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It must go through proprietary equipment (either hardware or software) that can only be accessed by companies that have been accredited by the US Postal Service. timestamps can be used for anything and do not have the same trust branding associated with the US Postal Service. You cannot put this into "timestamp" because it has more relevance to traditional postage than anything else. Timestamping can be used for the same purposes, but an electronic postmark can only be used (and associated) with activities approved by the postal authority.Sbanker 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments by puting four tildes after your post ( ~ ). What is the source for your statements. And, are you affiliated with ePostmarks? --Gerry Ashton 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tracking ePostmarks right now and expect to be affiliated with ePostmarks soon, but not at this point in time. My source is the ePostmarks website, USPS, and UPU websites among others. I have been having trouble citing sources when I am referencing the same source in multiple locations on the same article, but have included my primary source, the USPS homepage, in this article if that is sufficient.Sbanker 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The USPS website is large; it would be better to show the exact page in that website that contains the relevant information. If it isn't possible to give a URL that goes directly to the correct page, you could describe how to navigate from the USPS home page. --Gerry Ashton 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I will do that then. Is everything else fine? I was concerned about what material I will be able to post regarding ePostmarks once I am affiliated with it because it is both a company, a product, and a service closely linked to the EPM and the US Postal Service. I just don't want to rub anyone the wrong way with my posts Sbanker 23:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe I read somewhere in these related articles that ePostmarks will not actually start operation until 2007. If you read Notability you will see that topics should be notable in order to have Wikipedia articles about them. It is probably best not to mention ePostmarks unless they are written about in some independent source.
 * Also, the article at present reads like an advertisement; it describes all the wonderful benefits of electronic postmarks without explaining exactly how it works. The timestamp article does a better job of explaining how an Electronic postmark works than this article does.
 * Furthermore, all the material about legal issues is very doubtful; you would need an independent reliable source to state that unethical acts would be any more illegal with an EPM than without.


 * If this article turns out to be large enough to not merge into Timestamp, it should certainly be merged with the Digital Postmarks article. Those two topics are too close to need separate articles. It is normal when doing merges to leave redirects under the old name to the name of the merged artcle, so a person who searched for Electronic Postmark would find himself reading the Timestamp article. --Gerry Ashton 00:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I will do that nowSbanker 00:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism
This article contains several long quotations from http://www.epostmarks.com/info/ePostmarks%20overview%20white%20paper%20sept%202006.pdf that are not properly attributed. --Gerry Ashton 00:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)