I did a deja.com search for the senders address
(jamiro2002@my-deja.com) and found these posts:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=657317656&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=658291615&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=658293571&fmt=text
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=659502817&fmt=text
This bit from on of the headers:
" X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x69.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 199.108.50.36 "
suggests the IP address "199.108.50.36" is the sender's server.
This page http://www.osilab.ch/dns_e.htm shows that server to be
"los-feliz.lapl.org" which is a Los Angeles Public Library server.
I'd contact the LAPL and find out what it takes to get an account
with them and what it takes for someone using their server to get
a my-deja.com address via an account with the LA library.
At 08:38 AM 08/20/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> > >At best we could identify the account from which the post originated,
> > >perhaps even the computer. But it still would not provide courtroom
> > >*proof* of which carbon unit made the post. spike
> >
> > John Calvin wrote: Gee Spike, isn't handwriting admissable as evidence?
>
>It is. We have none.
>
> > Wasn't it you who mentioned the availability of pattern recognition
> software usable on text files?
>
>It is, but such evidence is good enough to convince *us* and to find
>truth for practical purposes. The level of proof required for a court
>case is another level.
>
> > With a fairly substantial test run would anyone be able to demonstrate
> the reliability of such pattern recognition software enough to clearly
> show that even though anyone could have used that particular machine and
> account they could not have so exactly duplicated style of some named
> individual? Is that doable?
>
>Hmmm, probably not. At least not for court case evidence. The text
>pattern recognition is really good for figuring out if an author used a
>ghost writer, etc, but recall a game we were playing last April Fools
>Day where I suggested we parody each other and post under each
>other's names etc. A few did so, and wrote parodies of me. At least
>one of these, Damien's, was not only a very good parody, it was
>hilarious. My point here is that if someone wanted to claim non-authorship,
>I dont see how we could prove otherwise in court, ever. The perp
>could always claim someone studied the vocabulary, writing style,
>and wrote an intentional look-alike.
>
>Nowthen, my text analysis software really needs a *lot* of text, and
>I suspect our bomb thrower yesterday was a one-time hit and run.
>I have more thoughts on this but gotta go to work.
>
> > I would like to continue this particular discussion under a different
> thread (such as "author identifiability").
>
>Good idea John. spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:19 MDT