ais523 wrote: >Well, I think it's pretty uncontroversially a date stamp,
I controvert it. It was not stamped on the message, in the usual meaning of the term. It was not added as part of a regular process, nor in a manner that would be expected to normally give an accurate record of the current date. > The scam itself fails for all sorts of reasons Not least because you, er, didn't actually send the message in 1993. -zefram
