On Wednesday 05 July 2006 00:31, Chris Lightfoot took the opportunity to
write:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 12:29:59AM +0200, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 July 2006 00:04, Marc Haber took the opportunity to write:
> > > On 4 Jul 2006 20:57:27 -0000, "Peter Bowyer" <peter@???> did
> > >
> > > not write:
> > > >Please take these amateur home 'server' questions to the Debian exim
> > > >mailing list. The exim-users list is for professional mail
> > > >administrators, not every student who can boot a Linux distro and
> > > >thinks he should run his own 'mail server'.
> > >
> > > This is another case of anonymous remailer abuse, a Joe Job against
> > > Peter.
> >
> > Always signing one's mail has its advantages.
>
> yes, it means when you want to create ambiguity you can
> leave the signature off a mail....
Likewise we can't know that it wasn't Peter himself who used the anonymous
remailer without having its operators reveal it, but there are strong reasons
(including common sense) to believe he didn't.
An absent signature where the alleged sender is known to sign all his mail
should raise suspicion, but it doesn't mean the mail wasn't sent by the
person indicated by the From: field. The difference is that an absent
signature may be easier to spot.
--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@???
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
