Xref: utzoo news.groups:13832 news.admin:7402
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!brspyr1!davef
From: davef@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Dave Fiske)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: forgery (was Re: Important announcement)
Message-ID: <6475@brspyr1.BRS.Com>
Date: 31 Oct 89 21:11:54 GMT
References: <6037@tank.uchicago.edu> <21593@gryphon.COM> <212@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: BRS Info Technologies, Latham NY
Lines: 28

In article <212@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes:
= 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.)

I suggest we have a new group, alt.forgeries, where all forged postings should
be posted.  At least that way we can keep them in one place.  :^)

Either that or add a "Forgery:" header to the news standards.

(BTW, this is not a forged posting.  Or is it?)
-- 
"MAN CHOKES TO DEATH --              Dave Fiske  (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) 
 ON A SNAKE!"                    
                                     Home:  David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com
Headline from Weekly World News             CIS: 75415,163  GEnie: davef