Xref: utzoo news.groups:13794 news.admin:7389 news.misc:3758 talk.bizarre:39674 alt.flame:11736
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!tank!mimsy!nems!ark1!dsill
From: dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (k30b)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin,news.misc,talk.bizarre,alt.flame
Subject: Re: forgery (was Re: Important announcement)
Message-ID: <216@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>
Date: 30 Oct 89 21:53:43 GMT
References: <36049@apple.Apple.COM> <6037@tank.uchicago.edu> <21593@gryphon.COM> <212@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>
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 <36049@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
> >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.
> 
> Actually, no.

Well, I did say *perhaps*.  It at least was not obviously unnecessary
to talk about the how-tos of forgery, as 6037@tank.uchicago.edu
suggested.

> >Another thing that's not obvious to me is why Richard didn't expose
> >the forgery.
> 
> One aspect of a forgery is that the person who is being forged doesn't see
> the message, because of an obscure aspect of the propogation code in
> USENET.

He would have seen your reply, though.

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