On Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:53:05 PDT Richard Childers [log in to unmask]> said: >"I am tired of this discussion and very tired of this particular >poster." > >Then don't contribute. The only reason I do is that I don't want non technical people to get an incorrect picture of the situation due to the misinformation you post routinely to this list (and not just about faked mail). If you were just kind enough not to post incorrect information, a lot of people would save time. But then we have already had this discussion, and it seems that you actually take pride in spreading misinformation. >I made it pretty clear that my statements were predicated on logging, >Eric. And you stated that LISTSERV had a copy in its logs, which it doesn't - not being a LISTSERV maintainer, there was no way for you to know whether it did or not, and thus no basis for you to state it. Furthermore the issue was not whether the origin can be traced if logs exist and the logs do point to the hacker. It doesn't take much technical expertise to understand that, in such a case, the origin can be traced provided the people with access to the logs cooperate. >But I'm not clear that _anyone_ is an expert on the Internet, since it >is, by definition, a superset of everything we know of, as a community. Nobody here claimed to be an Internet expert (certainly not me - unix and the Internet are clearly outside my sphere of expertise). Nor did anyone say you have to feel bad for not knowing everything there is to know about e-mail forgery. The only thing that was said is that it would be nice if you did not make silly statements all the time which non-technical people have no way to tell from accurate statements and may end up believing. It is dangerous to make people believe that, while forging e-mail is possible, it is always possible to track it and that such tracking is "cakework" for the FBI (a particularly ironical statement in light of the way the FBI handles computer-related cases - see the EFF newsletter for countless examples). Eric