Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Oct 4, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > There’s also a message in the agora-business archive bearing > > Date: some time near the end of July On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:33 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Who did that? ais523. The headers as a whole are pretty amusing, actually: From: ais5

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

Who did that? > On Oct 4, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On Dec 31, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> >> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> >>> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying >>> claim that the message w

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Dec 31, 2016, at 7:00 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying >> claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.” > > On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Owen Jacobso

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Would it make o's just-now forgery (Jan 1 2017) instantly self-ratify? > > > > (and thus self

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

https://www.xkcd.com/248/ > On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >>> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: Would it make o's just-now forg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 21:18 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Would it make o's just-now forgery (Jan 1 2017) instantly self-ratify? > > > (and thus self-ratify not just the date but any contents that ar

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

I’d argue that Apple Mail does the right thing here. It realizes that Date is easily forgeable, and instead displays what it knows is accurate. I *can* view the date by going to View > Message > Raw Source. Gaelan > On Oct 3, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017, Owe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

Interestingly, my mail client (Apple Mail) displays this message as being from today—I think it’s using the Received header. I’d proprose a blanket rule saying something like “people SHALL NOT use technical means to mislead others about the properties of a message, including but not limited to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Would it make o's just-now forgery (Jan 1 2017) instantly self-ratify? > > (and thus self-ratify not just the date but any contents that are self- > > ratifying?) > > The message still doesn't self-

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 20:39 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Would it make o's just-now forgery (Jan 1 2017) instantly self-ratify? > (and thus self-ratify not just the date but any contents that are self- > ratifying?) The message still doesn't self-ratify until a week after the other players generall

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > > Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to > > > display anomalous Date: headers. > > > > Could lead to some interesting time paradoxes, too (given that changing > > the gamestate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:19 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> It’s not the format that’s the problem. Many clients display the date a >> message was received, not the Date: of the message itself, when showing >> dates in message lists. Mine (Mail.app,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: It’s not the format that’s the problem. Many clients display the date a message was received, not the Date: of the message itself, when showing dates in message lists. Mine (Mail.app, macOS Sierra, up-to-date on patches) does this. *Sigh* well, at lea

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:14 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> >> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very >>> clear here to be sure]. >> >> You cut that _very_ close to a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display anomalous Date: headers. Could lead to some interesting time paradoxes, too (given that changing the gamestate as though the message were sent at some other time than the time the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:55 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen >>> wrote: >>> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self- >>> ratifying claim that the message was sent at the ind

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to display anomalous Date: headers. For example, this message's Date: header claims that it was sent on Jan 1st, 2017. I thought you meant "anomalous" as in weird format, yours looks no

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:07 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >>> >>> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying >>> claim that the message was sent at the indicated

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:55 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen > > wrote: > > "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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: "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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self-ratifying claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.” On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:55 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some c

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen 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 forge

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

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-

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> The “technical domain” precedent has never, to my knowledge, been overturned. >> The tooling I’m working on right now treats the Date: header as >> authoritative by >> default, on the presump

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > The “technical domain” precedent has never, to my knowledge, been overturned. > The tooling I’m working on right now treats the Date: header as authoritative > by > default, on the presumption that (a) we can amend a recorded message that’s > got >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 9:23 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very >> clear here to be sure]. > > You cut that _very_ close to a week. And because of an erroneous clock > setting in Nichde

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very > > clear here to be sure]. > > You cut that _very_ close to a week. And because of an erroneous clock setting > in Nichdel's computer

DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: [I think I did the CoE part of this message already, but I'm being very clear here to be sure]. You cut that _very_ close to a week. And because of an erroneous clock setting in Nichdel's computer, quite likely not on the side you intended. Mail header