The attribution rule in the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce was ultimately limited to technology agreed between the signor and the relying party.

(a) Amending paragraph 3 (a) of article 9 of the draft Convention (A CN.9 577) to recognize that electronic signatures are sometimes required by law only for the purpose of identifying the person signing ( the signor ) and associating the information with the signor, but not necessarily to indicate the signor's approval of the information contained in the electronic communication and

It is not the form of the signature, but the proven link between the signature and the purported signor based on the context, that gives the signature its legal effect.

In order to establish the signature's function of linking the signor with the signed document, the context of the signing will always have to be demonstrated, whether the signature is on paper or electronic.

So a history of dealings with the purported signor, or a low value transaction, may persuade someone to rely on a signature that would not be satisfactory if it were from a stranger or for a high value transaction.

If it is recognized that the legal effect of a signature is based on the proven link between the document, the signature and the purported signor, then it is irrelevant whether the signature method was of an appropriate level of reliability.

Both the cross X and machine printed name are legally valid signatures, though questions of proof may arise. In each case, it is a matter of proof whether the purported signor did in fact sign in that manner and intended thereby to sign the document.