| 1 |
On Thu, 29 May 2008 09:35:39 +0200 |
| 2 |
Wolf Canis <wolf.canis@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> »Q« wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Wolf Canis <wolf.canis@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >> Would know a message reach the ML with my Name but no signature or |
| 8 |
> >> a different signature, could one relatively be sure about the fact |
| 9 |
> >> that this particular message is not from the original "Wolf |
| 10 |
> >> Canis". |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > No, we'd have absolutely no way of telling whether or not it came |
| 13 |
> > from the original "Wolf Canis". You could post using your usual |
| 14 |
> > signature, telling us the other one wasn't from you, but we'd have |
| 15 |
> > nothing to go on but your word. I think most of us /would/ take |
| 16 |
> > your word for it, but I doubt the signatures make a difference in |
| 17 |
> > that. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That would mean that "Wolf Canis" is a bad boy and would have more |
| 20 |
> than one signature, one for normal use and one or more for evil use. |
| 21 |
> OK, if it's that what you mean, I understand it that way, then you |
| 22 |
> are right. But I'm pretty sure that, if "Wolf Canis" comes with |
| 23 |
> different signatures then it would be at least questionable and |
| 24 |
> would probably lead to a ban, I think. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'd support a ban in either that case (you pretending to be more than |
| 27 |
one poster) or the other (another poster pretending to be you). But in |
| 28 |
neither case do the signatures give us any more information than we |
| 29 |
would otherwise have had about whether there's an imposter or not. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
»Q« |
| 33 |
Kleeneness is next to Gödelness. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives