==============================  CFJ 2845  ==============================

    I have CFJed on this exact statement, except with 'City' and
    'United' exchanged.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by ais523:                       26 Aug 2010 22:49:45 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    28 Aug 2010 00:05:46 GMT
Judged TRUE by scshunt:                 28 Aug 2010 08:48:28 GMT

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Note that the Date: stamps are incorrect; to be precise, they're both
too early by quite a way. I should have made care to ensure those were
the same too.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

The datestamps showing up in my mailbox are:
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:48:22 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:49:45 -0500 (CDT)

which are past, and match the time received by agoranomic.org in timezone as
well as time.  On the other hand, your explanatory message has the datestamp:
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:14 +0100

I'm guessing that at some stage either my mailreader or agoranomic corrected
for receipt from the future?  In which case, agoranomic automatically stopped
the scam by choosing an intelligent timing (the same one as the precedent
IIRC).

========================================================================

Gratuitous Evidence by Taral:

For the record, the emails were received in this order:

Aug 26 17:55:00 yzma postfix/cleanup[16068]: 717A0812E5:
message-id=<unitedcity@example.com>
Aug 26 17:55:00 yzma postfix/cleanup[16047]: 2CB1C812E4:
message-id=<cityunited@example.com>

========================================================================

Judge scshunt's Arguments:

I honestly cannot bother to get a free capacitor out of these two cases,
they are so straightforward - there is no reason to even vary a bit from
established precedent.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2010-August
/032300.html

ais523 wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 16:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Gratuitous:
>> The datestamps showing up in my mailbox are:
>> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:48:22 -0500 (CDT)
>> Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:49:45 -0500 (CDT)
>>
>> which are past, and match the time received by agoranomic.org in timezone
as
>> well as time.  On the other hand, your explanatory message has the
datestamp:
>> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:14 +0100
>>
>> I'm guessing that at some stage either my mailreader or agoranomic
corrected
>> for receipt from the future?  In which case, agoranomic automatically
stopped
>> the scam by choosing an intelligent timing (the same one as the precedent
IIRC).
>
> The original mails weren't datestamped at all.
>
> More interestingly, the Agora-binding datestamp - the Received: stamp
> where the message leaves my TDoC and enters Taral's - is actually before
> the time at which I actually sent the email, which is clearly
> exploitable if that precedent continues to hold. I assumed it would show
> the time I sent the email, rather than the time I started to compose it,
> which makes no sense given the circumstances.
>
> I bet BlogNomic is laughing at us right now! (It has a persistent
> technical problem in that blog posts are given the date and time people
> started to write them, rather than the time they finished, meaning that
> they often accidentally end up out of order.)

http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2010-August
/032306.html

ais523 wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:41 -0400, omd wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim@u.washington.edu>
wrote:
>> > I'm not sure how the "received by" agoranomic date can be before you sent
it,
>> > unless someone has their clock wrong.  That agoranomic date is consistent
>> > with the time my server received it a few mins later and the time I saw
it
>> > a few minutes after that.  -G.
>>
>> It matches when e began the message (in the SMTP session) not when e
>> finished it.
>
> You can start sending the email, but stop halfway through, and later on,
> finish sending the email (and you don't need to have specified all the
> content of the email by this point). For some reason, the timestamp
> given is the timestamp when you started sending, even though you might
> have decided what to put in the email some time later than that.

See also CFJ 2496.

========================================================================