> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> 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. > > "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying > claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.”
Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display anomalous Date: headers. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
