coppro wrote: > On 08/28/2010 02:47 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> On 08/27/2010 06:05 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2844 >>> >>> =================== CFJ 2844 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== >>> >>> I have CFJed on this exact statement, except with 'United' and >>> 'City' exchanged. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >>> =================== CFJ 2845 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== >>> >>> I have CFJed on this exact statement, except with 'City' and >>> 'United' exchanged. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> >> I honestly cannot bother to get a free capacitor out of these two cases, >> they are so straightforward - there is no reason to even vary a bit from >> established precedent. >> >> I judge FALSE and TRUE respectively. I stand up. >> >> -coppro > > TTttPF.
For each of these cases, I submit the following gratuitous arguments (and apologize for not having included them up front), and intend (with 2 support) to appeal its judgement, recommending REMAND without prejudice: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2010-August/032300.html ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 16:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Gratuitous: >> The datestamps showing up in my mailbox are: >> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:48:22 -0500 (CDT) >> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:49:45 -0500 (CDT) >> >> which are past, and match the time received by agoranomic.org in timezone as >> well as time. On the other hand, your explanatory message has the datestamp: >> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:14 +0100 >> >> I'm guessing that at some stage either my mailreader or agoranomic corrected >> for receipt from the future? In which case, agoranomic automatically stopped >> the scam by choosing an intelligent timing (the same one as the precedent >> IIRC). > > The original mails weren't datestamped at all. > > More interestingly, the Agora-binding datestamp - the Received: stamp > where the message leaves my TDoC and enters Taral's - is actually before > the time at which I actually sent the email, which is clearly > exploitable if that precedent continues to hold. I assumed it would show > the time I sent the email, rather than the time I started to compose it, > which makes no sense given the circumstances. > > I bet BlogNomic is laughing at us right now! (It has a persistent > technical problem in that blog posts are given the date and time people > started to write them, rather than the time they finished, meaning that > they often accidentally end up out of order.) http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2010-August/032306.html ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:41 -0400, omd wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > I'm not sure how the "received by" agoranomic date can be before you sent >> > it, >> > unless someone has their clock wrong. That agoranomic date is consistent >> > with the time my server received it a few mins later and the time I saw it >> > a few minutes after that. -G. >> >> It matches when e began the message (in the SMTP session) not when e >> finished it. > > You can start sending the email, but stop halfway through, and later on, > finish sending the email (and you don't need to have specified all the > content of the email by this point). For some reason, the timestamp > given is the timestamp when you started sending, even though you might > have decided what to put in the email some time later than that. See also CFJ 2496.
