> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> The “technical domain” precedent has never, to my knowledge, been overturned. >> The tooling I’m working on right now treats the Date: header as >> authoritative by >> default, on the presumption that (a) we can amend a recorded message that’s >> got >> the wrong date, and (b) people won’t lie in their headers very often, but >> this >> is how that assumption can fail. I also use Date: when figuring out event >> times >> for reports. > > So the TDOC precedent was set long ago in a very different ruleset. I've > always > been of the opinion that we should go with the Date: header, and the knowledge > that it can be forged for tiny advantage be dealt with by some kind of crime > (e.g. > "if the date-headers show discrepancy, and that discrepancy would gain a > material advantage...") and say "not messing with the headers" is the same as > "not playing as two people from different accounts": strong social pressure > not > to do so, but not worth our time to be paranoid about. The convenience of the > Date header all around is worth accepting that it's *possible* to fake.
Well, I’ve got AP to burn. How much would I annoy people if I submitted a test-case CFJ for the express purpose of reviewing the old TDOC standard? You even created a somewhat-recent test case I could use: from my perspective, the table of dice results to rule names arrived after the dice message purporting to select a rule, which would, if I didn’t trust you to be playing fair, suggest shenanigans. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
