Prev: monoalphabetic substitution cipher
Next: How many will Kruh bamboozle today?
From: Thomas Pornin on 9 Dec 2009 08:05
According to Noob <root(a)127.0.0.1>:
> If he's really using trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) perhaps he
> should consider an upgrade?

That's the most recent version of trn which is available. Development on
that newsreader has apparently stopped. Note that nothing prevents a trn
user from quoting parts of the post which is responded to; trn will
happily included the quoted message and a customizable attribution line,
as shown here.


--Thomas Pornin
From: Gordon Burditt on 9 Dec 2009 20:19
>That's freaking hilarious considering your inane attribution
>policy (namely, not to include one).

Blame assignment (attribution) lines shouldn't be used unless you're
sure you are blaming the correct person (few articles are digitally
signed). From: lines are trivially easy to forge, to the point
that you can't be sure that all articles not posted by you aren't
posted by a single other person who never uses his real name.

From: Noob on 10 Dec 2009 04:34
Someone claiming to be "Gordon Burditt" wrote:

> Phil Carmody wrote:
>
>> That's freaking hilarious considering your inane attribution
>> policy (namely, not to include one).
>
> Blame assignment (attribution) lines shouldn't be used unless you're
> sure you are blaming the correct person (few articles are digitally
> signed). From: lines are trivially easy to forge, to the point
> that you can't be sure that all articles not posted by you aren't
> posted by a single other person who never uses his real name.

Could you, perhaps, insert the following attribution line?

"Someone claiming to be $(FROM) wrote: "
From: david.florman on 10 Dec 2009 10:08

>
> Answer from whom?
>
> >Smug Doug Gwyn has stated does not believe in sharing
> >information. So why is he a (sci.crypt expert)?
>
> Since there is no such person, he's not a "sci.crypt expert".
>
> >And who says there's
> >no such site as sci.corrupt?
>
> There is no .corrupt top-level domain, so there can't be a sci.corrupt
> site.  Perhaps you were thinking of newsgroup names.

Looks to me like you're asking me to show a little respect where
absolutely none has been shown to me. If you're having trouble
identifying Smug Doug Gwyn, I would suggest you contact the
Bamboozler Kruuh, or Gutless Gillogly. As for sci.corrupt, it has
become the plaything of the National Socialist Agency. Don't worry,
you're not supposed to have heard of them.
From: Gordon Burditt on 10 Dec 2009 21:40
>>> That's freaking hilarious considering your inane attribution
>>> policy (namely, not to include one).
>>
>> Blame assignment (attribution) lines shouldn't be used unless you're
>> sure you are blaming the correct person (few articles are digitally
>> signed). From: lines are trivially easy to forge, to the point
>> that you can't be sure that all articles not posted by you aren't
>> posted by a single other person who never uses his real name.
>
>Could you, perhaps, insert the following attribution line?

That's still potential slander/libel if it assigns blame to the
wrong person when the person inserting it (that would be me) knows
the From: line is meaningless.

And it still won't tell you who said what. It isn't that uncommon
to have two different posters named in attribution lines in a posting
to both say that they didn't say the same objectionable words in
that posting. Obviously the "who wrote what" gets misinterpreted.

>"Someone claiming to be $(FROM) wrote: "

People rarely claim who they are in a posting (From: lines don't
count. If you place a meaningless turd there, it doesn't mean
you're that turd.)

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: monoalphabetic substitution cipher
Next: How many will Kruh bamboozle today?