Hello fellow listowners,
 
I have a problem (in 3 parts) with an allegedly forged posting.  One of
the list members (the list is self-moderated) alleges that a posting
send with his e-mail address was not sent by him, and is all upset about
it.
 
Part 1: Technical
 
Both he and I are subscribed as DIGEST, and there are no notebooks for
this list.  Furthermore, default options include SHORTHDR, so it is
unlikely that *anyone* is subscribed as FULLHDR (yes, I suppose I could
find out by doing a query on *@*).  At any rate, the question is: Is
there any kind of log stored on the server for a few days that would let
me retrieve (with postmaster's assistance, if necessary) the full
headers for a particular message, to help in the analysis of where that
message actually came from?
 
Part 2: Policy
 
Assuming the perpetrator can be found, what action, if any, should be
taken against him or her?  Some more info:
(a) The list rules do not explicitly state "do not forge someone else's
address"; however, there is enough latitude in the "generalities" of the
rules to take any appropriate action;
(b) There is no rule against anonymous postings--somewhat different, I
realize; in fact, many users have pseudonyms, and this is well accepted
(as long as it isn't used as a cloak for nastiness, which it rarely is);
(c) There was nothing IMHO particulary damaging in the article, i.e., I
think it was done more as a prank than as a serious attempt to discredit
the person;
(d) Notwithstanding (c), it was a cleverly done prank, in that there was
nothing obvious in the message that might indicate that it was forged,
i.e., the intent clearly seemed to be to deceive or to cause mischief
(forcing the person whose name was forged to claim that it was not he
who wrote it--there was just enough in the message that he might well
want to disclaim authorship).
 
So, what would *you* do in a case like that?  Warn the perpetrator?
Remove him summarily and filter him out?  Is this an extreme breach of
Internet conduct deserving the most extreme treatment or a childish
prank deserving a mild reprimand, or something in between?
 
Part 3: Psychological
 
I must admit that my natural tendency to side with the wronged (and I
have no reason to suspect that he might be bluffing), is tempered
somewhat by the unnecessarily strident and self-righteous tone of the
note he sent me:
 
> ...We need to track down the person posting this. I haven't decided
> yet what to do about it, but I intend to consult an attorney.
> I do not hold you responsible for this. I do insist that you help
> prevent such behavior in the future.
 
If "attorney" were deleted (is he trying to pressure *me* with the
A-word?!) and "insist" changed to "request" (along with the general
tone), then I'd feel more motivated to be sympathetic.  As it is, I'm
inclined to say, "If absolute prevention of forgeries is what you want,
you'd better unsubscribe until the Internet comes up with a completely
secure authenticated e-mail infrastructure that becomes universally
adopted."
 
Should I be more sympathetic and swallow my pride on this one, or is
*he* a troublemaker too, and should I not encourage his
self-righteousness?
 
Shahrukh
--
Shahrukh Merchant