How bad would it be to send several emails in a short period of time with the hope that one of them has the best timing?
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 8:55 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/11/23 13:46, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > > Is the timestamp of the mailing list itself the one that appears on the > > archive website? > > So if you download an email and open it in plaintext, or click "view > headers" or "view source" on your client, you will see a ton of metadata > attached to every email. Among that is the complete route it took from > the sender's computer to the receiver's computer. Each stop has a > timestamp on it. > > Your client itself will normally display the timestamp attached by the > sending machine. This is usually assumed to be honest, but could > actually be forged (to amusing results, such as pushing a new email way > back in your inbox because it reports and old date, I believe ais523 or > someone else actually did this for an email in the archives). The > archives also use this date I believe. > > A court could also choose to use this time, but it could be forged. They > might instead use the first time reported by the next machine, which is > extremely unlikely to be forged. Or they might use the time the list > actually received it. All of those options are in the header of every > email, and they all seem to have good arguments for and against them. > > So it's an interestingly complex question, actually. In practice tho, > all of those times are likely to be less than a second or two from each > other, so the majority of the time the winner will be obvious anyway. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
