==============================  CFJ 1721  ==============================

    The Person known to Agora as Peekee recently sent a message to the
    Public Forum containing the text "I did not send the message."


Caller:                                 Wooble
Barred:                                 Peekee

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Wooble:                       13 Aug 2007 09:17:42 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        13 Aug 2007 09:22:17 GMT
omd recused:                            21 Aug 2007 00:58:38 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     21 Aug 2007 06:08:29 GMT
Judged TRUE by Zefram:                  21 Aug 2007 12:36:00 GMT


Judge Zefram's Arguments:

My mail records show a message containing the quoted text with headers
(among others):

|Received: from yzma.clarkk.net (localhost [])
|        by yzma.clarkk.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
|        id F20C680681; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:20:03 -0500 (CDT)
|Delivered-To: agora-business@yzma.clarkk.net
|Received: from fripp.uk-noc.com (fripp.uk-noc.com [])
|        by yzma.clarkk.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FAA8067E
|        for <agora-business@agoranomic.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:19:20 -0500
|Received: from cpanel by fripp.uk-noc.com with local (Exim 4.63)
|        (envelope-from <agora@peekee.co.uk>)
|        id 1IKCPe-0002UO-Ey
|        for agora-business@agoranomic.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:19:18 +0100
|Message-ID: <20070812131918.g5fxwiqw56680og4@orchardhostings6.co.uk>
|From: Peekee <agora@peekee.co.uk>
|To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
|Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 13:19:18 +0100

The timing certainly qualifies as "recently" from the point of view of
the initiation of this CFJ.  The Received: and From: headers are both
consistent with other messages sent by the person known as "Peekee".

The mail headers are, furthermore, consistent specifically with messages
allegedly initiated by Peekee personally, and not consistent with
messages sent via Peekee's mail-sending HTTP interface.  The finding in
CFJ 1719 makes this distinction irrelevant, but it has the effect that
this judgement can stand even if CFJ 1719 is overturned.

All the evidence is in favour of Peekee having sent a message as
described.  As no reason to doubt this evidence has been supplied,
I judge TRUE.