Xref: utzoo news.groups:13780 news.admin:7380 news.misc:3754 talk.bizarre:39663 alt.flame:11724
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!aplcen!haven!mimsy!nems!ark1!dsill
From: dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin,news.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.flame
Subject: forgery (was Re: Important announcement)
Summary: obvious?  yes and no
Message-ID: <212@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>
Date: 30 Oct 89 18:04:45 GMT
References: <6037@tank.uchicago.edu> <21593@gryphon.COM>
Sender: news@ark1.nswc.navy.mil
Reply-To: Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren VA
Lines: 20

In article <6037@tank.uchicago.edu>, toto@tank.uchicago.edu (Sandra
Jessica Smyth) writes:
> Now, is it obvious why we don't need discussions of how postings can
> be forged?

No, it's not.  Perhaps if we (the set of all USENET administrators)
knew how postings were forged, we'd know how to stop forgeries.  I'd
rather have a short period during which the forgery rate is expected
to be high followed by a long period of no forgeries than a long
period of unexpected forgeries.

What is obvious to me, though, (even if you don't buy the above) is
that we need to discuss how to recognize a forged posting.  My guess
is that you looked at the Path: entry in the header and saw that
gryphon was linked to the wrong system.  (Just a guess.)

Another thing that's not obvious to me is why Richard didn't expose
the forgery.

Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)