On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Bob Rosenberg wrote: > >(Expect to see a lot more spam with the date set 30 days in the past.) > > But wouldn't the Received Headers which show REAL timestamps show > intent to evade the law by BackDating the Message and thus provide > evidence for enforcement under the law?
If I set my MTA machine's clock back by 30 days so that the first such header has the same date, possibly indicating that the message spent 30 days queued awaiting delivery, how can you prove that it didn't leave my MUA when the Date: says it did? IANAL, so I'm not able to opine whether a misleading date constitutes "material" alteration of the message header, particularly when it is also something that could happen due to connectivity interruptions in normal message transfer. OTOH, millions of examples of same would tend to be circumstantially incriminating. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Perforce Software. Perforce is the Fast Software Configuration Management System offering advanced branching capabilities and atomic changes on 50+ platforms. Free Eval! http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadprog.html _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
