mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch) (01/01/70)
In article <21140@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: > I think what we need here is a good dose of *informed* opinion. Any of > the lawyers out there (mcb?) willing to comment? Be glad to. After reading the whole exchange, which is simply the latest go-round on this perennial Usenet issue, I'm still not certain exactly what it is that Mr. Lippman is trying to say. All I get from his three latest articles is sort of a generalized alarm about site liability, based on a theory of "publication" by the site. In article <2071@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > > ... > > The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice > > posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by > > users of the system. > > I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites > have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the > above on a public access unix system are worthless. > [...] > An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect > publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes) > the article. To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron, > "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3) > publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the > author. This is certainly a theory held by many people; I certainly would not consider it the state of the law and assert it, as Mr. Lippman does, as fact. Remember that the word "publication" in defamation law, as in copyright law, is a "term of art"; that is, it has a special legal meaning that might be similar to, but not identical to, common usage. In both defamation and copyright law there are instances of copying and distributing a work that any normal person would consider "publication", but do not legally consitute "publication". So we cannot look simply to the common meaning of "publication" to determine if a Usenet site "publishes". There is certainly the issue of approval and control, which would exist in the normal print or broadcast publication process but is not present in Usenet because of the way the software works. Ultimately, it is a public policy issue, and it has not been widely litigated. There has been some criminal jurisprudence regarding the liability of BBS sysops for the distribution of illegally-obtained information like credit card numbers, but no strong appellate rule has emerged. The effect of disclaimers has not been tested at all, to my knowledge, and allusion to statutes that make certain disclaimers inoperative is interesting, but not necessarily a good statement of the law. I would consider the entire field an open issue... > Now, I have gone into considerable detail here and in recent > previous articles because I am trying to convey an important message to > system administrators: > > 1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles > (and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users > post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if > users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/? Well, > I am trying to point out something that could be just as serious, > but may not be quite as obvious. The example of institutional liability for disclosure of proprietary material is not remotely analogous; in that case the institution has agreed to protect the material according to certain standards. No institution , to my knowledge, has engaged to be responsible for its users' Usenet articles, and organizational liability based on publisher status remains a theory, not law. It may turn out to be a valid theory, or it may not. It may turn out that prominent disclaimers will effectively prevent liability, or it may not. Certainly admins should be aware of the potential for liability, but I do not see a reason for self-censorship. Quite frankly, I'm still not sure what the shouting is about in the present case. This cort of case seems to come up every years or so. The first time I came across Matthew Wiener was some time back when he wanted to sue Rich Rosen for defamation, and I posted a couple of articles to try to get him (and others who were beginning to get hot under the collar) to cool down. As for the Smith/Lippman business, I find it difficult to follow either Mr. Lippman's argument that he was defamed, or that there should be some formal mechanism of "identifying" Usenet users, a process that I find dubious in theory and impossible in practice. Many sites have a policy that they will not provide personal information about their users, for employment reasons or simply for purposes of privacy. Under what doctrine Mr. Lippman proposes that they do so, I am unable to ascertain. The fact that "Mark Ethan Smith" is in fact not a pseudonym and can easily be located by any number of people lends no support to Mr. Lippman's theory. Personally, I find it difficult to defend anything that Mark Ethan Smith does; the last time I did so, she managed to flame me for some unrelated foolishness about "diminutive pronouns". Frankly, I have better things to do. But the legal issues are, I think, worth examining. Michael C. Berch Member of the California Bar ARPA: mcb@lll-tis.arpa UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
gds@sri-spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (01/01/70)
In article <21140@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >- Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a >-publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to: >-(1) "news"; (2) "articles"; > >This is a convenient metaphor, but only that: a metaphor. Usenet should >not be confused with broadcast media. I seem to recall some discussion about the time Stargate was being planned as to the legal status of Usenet and the responsibilities of sites, posters, and so forth. I don't recall all the details but I am pretty sure that Usenet was considered to be a broadcast medium. Perhaps someone from the Stargate crew could enlighten us with the legal questions posed about Usenet. --gregbo
daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) (10/01/87)
In article <2050@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >In article <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, genji@opal.berkeley.edu (Genji Schmeder) writes: >> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing) > I view the presence of anonymous and deceptive posters as a cancer >which seriously undermines the quality and integrity of Usenet. I call upon >any system administrator having "Smith" accounts to: > >1. Post to the Net any identifying information in their possession > about "Smith". > >2. Revoke any accounts (such as "Smith's") which have pseudonyms. Gentlepersons. This is not a matter which may usefully be discussed in the news administration newsgroup. You may indulge in flame wars on the alt subnet, in the flame group. The operation of sites on USENET is the responsibility of their owners, and unless actual harm is being done to other sites or persons by mail, the operation is not a matter for the courts or for the net. If you have probable cause to believe that harm is being done, please make it a matter for the courts. This message is being cross-posted to misc.legal. -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (10/05/87)
In article <1985@midas.TEK.COM>, darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) writes: First, just to clear up a minor point: > You have never answered how Mark Ethan Smith's actions constitute > *fraud*. *I* never made that accusation about "Smith" in particular. You have taken my remarks out of context and have deleted the prior references. In any event, that accusation and others were made in articles before mine, as below: References: <378d6016.b8ab@apollo.uucp$$> <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> $$> In article <5261@jade.BERKELEY.EDU$$>, genji@opal.berkeley.edu (Genji Schmeder) writes: $$> >Is this Mark Ethan Smith for real, or an elaborate (and long-standing) $$> >hoax? $$> $$> Mark Ethan Smith has not yet replied to my demand last week for either $$> the names of the "woman hating" programmers working at UCB computer $$> center or a retraction of his/her accusation. (Smith's account, $$> era1987@violet, has been logged in several times since my message $$> appeared in news.) Smith also claimed that woman haters here have $$> maliciously tampered with news software, another serious charge. Now to the important issue... > I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility > whatsoever for any articles posted by its users. > ... > The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice > posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by > users of the system. I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the above on a public access unix system are worthless. Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to: (1) "news"; (2) "articles"; (3) "authors"; (4) "media" [magnetic media is sufficient]; (5) "distribution"; (6) "subscription"; and (7) "solicitation for paid subscription". The last element (7) is particularly aimed at "public access UNIX" sites which generally charge subscribers for access to Usenet; also in this instance, many public access UNIX systems solicit subscribers with Usenet access being the primary "attraction". An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes) the article. To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron, "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3) publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the author. Most libel suits name only the publisher as a defendant, and not the author; the issue of the author is secondary, and in some cases is immaterial. Consider as an example, a famous case of libel that ultimately caused the collapse of the Saturday Evening Post. Wallace Butts, the athletic director of the University of Georgia, brought a multimillion dollar libel suit against Curtis Publishing Co. (publisher of the Saturday Evening Post) for publishing a false story which claimed that Butts had conspired to rig a college football game. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was affirmed in favor of Butts. There was no issue raised concerning liability of the author - only liability of the publisher. Concerning the issue of disclaimers as alleged to be used by site dasys1: Most disclaimers sound good, many people believe them, but in reality they are usually meaningless. In fact, most (if not all) states have laws pertaining to "prohibited contracts"; i.e., there are laws which specifically state that certain types of disclaimers of liability can NEVER be valid. As an example, in New York State the invalidation of certain types of disclaimers of liability is contained in the "General Obligations Law", Article 5 Title 3. There are over a dozen detailed statutes contained within the above law invalidating various types of disclaimers; some examples of the titles of these statutes are: 5-321 "Agreements exempting lessors from liability for negligence void and unenforcable." 5-322.1 "Agreements exempting owners and contractors from liability for negligence void and unenforcable." 5-325 "Garages and parking places; agreements exempting from liability for negligence void." 5-326 "Agreements exempting pools, gymnasiums, places of public amusement or recreation and similar establishments from liability for negligence void and unenforcable." How many times have you seen parking garages with signs proclaiming such language as "Not responsible for damage or loss of vehicles or personal property contained therein.", or with such language printed on the parking ticket? Well - surprise! - such disclaimers are invalid; the parking garage IS responsible. Now, I have gone into considerable detail here and in recent previous articles because I am trying to convey an important message to system administrators: 1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles (and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/? Well, I am trying to point out something that could be just as serious, but may not be quite as obvious. 2. Exercise some discretion in whom you allow to have Usenet access. Employees and students have some implied reasons to act in a responsible manner; i.e., their employment or academic standing is "on the line". Guest accounts and "people off the street" usually have no such implied reasons to act in responsible manner; i.e., if they act in an irresponsible manner and get kicked off the system, they take the attitude "So what? I'll go elsewhere". That's not such an easy attitude for an employee or student to take, however. As an example of the above, I have NEVER seen an article containing defamatory language from an AT&T site. AT&T sites constitute a significant portion of the Net. Think about this. In a recent article on this newsgroup (to which I did not feel like directly replying), some questions were raised as to whether the spectre of government regulation or censorship is being raised. This is absolutely NOT the case. I am not talking creating any new type of regulation. Any laws which might apply to abuse of mail or Usenet article posting already exist. I am neither advocating censorship of electronic mail nor advocating censorship of Usenet articles. You are all familiar with the concept of a "trusted host" as applied to networks. I am trying to convey the concept of a "trusted user" as applied to mail and Usenet articles. Can you trust your users to act in a responsible manner and keep your organization free from liability? Do your users have any incentive to act in a responsible manner? Or are they people "off the street" who pay their $ 5.00 or $ 10.00 or so per month, and could care less about the consequences of their actions to your organization? I have done the best I can to make my point. If administrators want to heed my advice, fine; if not, that's fine, too. I am just trying to be helpful by conveying some information which is particularly contemporaneous with, uh, "other events". I have said "my piece" as clearly as I can, and I will now attempt to get out of the discussion loop. If someone has serious questions or wants references as to the legal issues, I will be glad to provide them. If someone tries to "bait" me into further antagonistic discussion, I will do the best I can to resist temptation and keep quiet; however, I promise nothing, since I am a tough old SOB who doesn't take shit from anyone, and who doesn't back down from a fight. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis) (10/05/87)
In article <2071@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
-> I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility
-> whatsoever for any articles posted by its users.
-> ...
-> The Big Electric Cat is a public access unix system, and has a notice
-> posted publicly that it is in no way responsible for any postings by
-> users of the system.
-
- I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites
-have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the
-above on a public access unix system are worthless.
This is presented as fact, but how qualified are you to make such a judgement?
Are you an attorney?
- Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a
-publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to:
-(1) "news"; (2) "articles";
This is a convenient metaphor, but only that: a metaphor. Usenet should
not be confused with broadcast media.
-(6) "subscription"
Another metaphor; there is no central entity providing news only to
those who "subscribe" to it. In the context of netnews, "subscription"
is just a convenient way of describing a topic selection algorithm, and
does not carry the connotations usually associated with the word.
-; and (7) "solicitation for paid subscription". The last element (7) is
-particularly aimed at "public access UNIX" sites which generally charge
-subscribers for access to Usenet; also in this instance, many public access
-UNIX systems solicit subscribers with Usenet access being the primary
-"attraction".
I believe the charges are usually for access to the system per se (which
often includes Usenet access), not the Usenet access itself. For instance,
Mark Ethan Smith has an account on violet.berkeley.edu, which costs money,
but Usenet is an unsupported service on that machine. Users who pay
for access aren't guaranteed that netnews will be available. I suspect
the same goes for most sites on the network.
- An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect
-publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes)
-the article.
This is a peculiar interpretation; "sites" are only machines and are
incapable of taking any conscious action. The site administrators don't
have to take any specific action to cause distribution of the article;
once the software is initially set up, the only person who needs to
act to cause distribution of an article is the author, by submitting it
to the news posting program. If *anyone* can be considered the "publisher"
of a netnews article, it certainly must be the author!
-To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron,
-"Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3)
-publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the
-author.
This is simply a bald assertion on your part, given without any kind
of supporting arguments. While net postings *may* be actionable, the
only person who can reasonably be held responsible is the author of
the article, who *I* argue is also the publisher.
Holding the site (or more properly, the site administrator) responsible
for a usenet posting is like holding the postmaster liable for something
sent through the mail. Neither individual has the responsibility, or
even the ability (in the case of a heavily used site) to screen the
content of every message to ensure its acceptability. (In other
words, I am arguing that the network sites should be treated as common
carriers, just like the post office and the phone company.)
- Concerning the issue of disclaimers as alleged to be used by site
-dasys1: Most disclaimers sound good, many people believe them, but in
-reality they are usually meaningless.
That doesn't prove a thing about any particular disclaimer not covered
by the examples you give, such as the one used by dasys1.
-1. Your site and your organization IS responsible for Usenet articles
- (and any consequential damages resulting therefrom) that your users
- post. You do agree, do you not, that your site has a problem if
- users start posting the contents of say, /usr/src/uts/vax/?
That would be a problem, but it would hardly be libel. This situation is
presumably a violation of a licensing agreement, which would impose a
responsibility on the site administration to ensure that unauthorized parties
are not given access to source code. The situation simply doesn't extrapolate
to libel, so this example is irrelevant.
-2. Exercise some discretion in whom you allow to have Usenet access.
- Employees and students have some implied reasons to act in a
- responsible manner; i.e., their employment or academic standing
- is "on the line".
-[...]
- As an example of the above, I have NEVER seen an article containing
- defamatory language from an AT&T site. AT&T sites constitute a
- significant portion of the Net. Think about this.
Well, I've seen plenty of ads for dining room furniture in NJ posted to
the net with world distribution! Yes, from AT&T sites. And I've seen
plenty of obnoxious postings from places like DEC and Gould. So maybe
AT&T insists that its employees post reasonably, but this cannot in any
way be construed as an acknowledgement of responsibility. It's far more
likely to be a matter of public relations...they don't want representatives
of their company making idiots of themselves on the net.
- I have done the best I can to make my point. If administrators want
-to heed my advice, fine; if not, that's fine, too. I am just trying to be
-helpful by conveying some information which is particularly contemporaneous
-with, uh, "other events".
Well, thanks for trying, but to me it sounds more like you're trying
to justify your desire to hassle the site administrator of someone who
posted an article you didn't like, and make it harder for controversial
people like Mark Smith to obtain public access accounts on other systems.
I think what we need here is a good dose of *informed* opinion. Any of
the lawyers out there (mcb?) willing to comment?
-- Jim Lewis
U.C. Berkeleybyrnes@ge-dab.UUCP (10/06/87)
The real problem here is that Mr. Lipman isn't mature enough to either ignore a posting or to write a reply by e-mail to the sender. Mr. Lipman if you can't handle the traffic on usenet I advise you to give up your account and go back to reading books or whatever else you might want to do with your time. But to call someones sys-admin just because you don't agree with what they said, shows a major lack of maturity. Grow up or give up, but don't bother the thousands of other people who don't care for the drivel you post about how your feelings were hurt!!
dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (10/07/87)
This whole argument is getting a bit amusing. (Just a bit, not
much). People are talking about libel and slander and law suits
and ....
Please remember one major thing. Libel and slander MUST involve
damage to one's reputation and must be monetary in nature.
Law cases have shown that a "libel" isn't such if NO ONE
seriously would believe that the statement is to be taken
seriously. Not that the court will accept the "I was only
joking" defense very often but I seriously doubt that screaming
"!!!!!!" during a shouting match would get too much attention.
Also even if it is taken seriously, damage must be shown. Pain
and suffering, loss of business, damage to one's professional
reputation (to the degree it affects employability), etc and so
forth. To some degree this must include the degree of
publication and the nature of readers.
AFTER you explain to the judge and jury about the esoterics of
computer bulletin boards, mailing lists and stuff, then explain
what a flaming match is. After explaining some of the USENET
classics which did cause damage (were there any?) explain why
this particular situation is worthy of the court's attention.
Also, which court? By law the suit can be brought in the courts
of either the plaintiff's or defendant's legal residence or in
ANY place the libel appeared (Australia, Europe, Canada
perhaps?). By the way don't forget to have the full legal name
and address of all participants.
By now you should have had second thoughts about the whole thing.
MORAL: don't accuse some one of libel or slander unless something
more important than your ego is hurt. Don't talk about any flame
on USENET as libel unless you are serious. Otherwise it is a
waste of our time, communications bandwidth and money.
--
=Dennis L. Mumaugh
Lisle, IL ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlmstephen@obed.UUCP (10/07/87)
In article <2071@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: : In article <1985@midas.TEK.COM>, darcic@midas.TEK.COM (darci chapman) writes: : > I have to disagree vehemently: the sites do NOT bear legal responsibility : > whatsoever for any articles posted by its users. .... : : I hate to shatter your naivete, Ms. Chipman, but not only do sites : have liability for the actions of their users, but disclaimers such as the : above on a public access unix system are worthless. : : Usenet is a publication, albeit an electronic one. Usenet is a : publication because it embodies elements including but not limited to: .... : An author of a Usenet articles does not distribute (or in effect : publish) the article; the Usenet SITE distributes (or in effect publishes) : the article. To quote from "Mass Communication Law" by Gillmor and Barron, : "Actionable libel requires (1) defamation, (2) identification, and (3) : publication". In the case of Usenet, only the SITE "publishes", not the : author. Most libel suits name only the publisher as a defendant, and not : the author; the issue of the author is secondary, and in some cases is : immaterial. I think that ESPECIALLY in the case where the author of an article is paying for access to the system that the article is posted from, then it is the AUTHOR who is the publisher. Usenet is the MEDIUM. One does not sue the news outlet that sells the newspaper, nor does one sue the printer who sticks the ink to the paper (unless the printer and publisher are the same). One basically sues whomever it was that decided the article was worth publishing. In the case of a newspaper this is, in effect, the party with the legal title 'publisher'. In the case of Usenet, it is ultimately the POSTER who is responsible (unless the poster is on a system that previews the mail). Assuming that I am correct, this would mean that sites which censor/preview the stuff that goes thru them may in fact be making themselves MORE exposed to the possibility of a libel suit, unless the articles that would otherwise go thru them also have an alternate path onto the net.
bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) (10/10/87)
But speaking of liability, just how does one PROVE that statements made on
USENET actually come from the organization or user they say they do? It
is quite easy for me to post an article to the net that would appear to
come from larry@kitty.UUCP saying that "Smith" molested little girls.
By the definitions posted by Larry, that would be libel. But how would
anyone be able to prove or disprove that Larry actually posted it?
--
Roger L. Long
FileNet Corp
{hplabs,trwrb}!felix!bytebugvnend@engr.uky.edu (D. V. W. James) (10/11/87)
In article <1342@cuuxb.ATT.COM> dlm@cuuxb.UUCP (Dennis L. Mumaugh) writes: > >Please remember one major thing. Libel and slander MUST involve >damage to one's reputation and must be monetary in nature. > >=Dennis L. Mumaugh For a libel to occur, at least four, and sometimes five, conditions must be fulfilled. These are: 1) the statement must be defamatory. That is, it must tend to hurt someone's reputation; 2) it must identify its intended victim; 3) it must be communicated, that is, it must be broadcast in such a way that at least one other person other than the victom or perpetrator hears or sees it; 4) in cases involving the mass media there is also required a proof of fault. That means a the publisher must have been either guilty of actual malice or have been negligent in publishing it; 5) in cases where actual malice cannot be proven, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the victom of the libel must also prove damages. (Overbeck and Pullen, 1985) Overbeck, Wayne and Pullen, Rick D. (1985). Major Principles of _____ __________ __ Media Law (Second Edition) New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and _____ ___ ______ _______ Winston Copyright (c) 1987 by David W. James The above is from a paper I wrote this summer on the subject of Libel and USENET. Note that damages need not be proven in all cases. -- Later y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure. cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!vnend; vnend@engr.uky.edu; vnend%ukecc.uucp@ukma.BITNET Also: cn0001dj@ukcc.BITNET, Compuserve 73277,1513 and VNEND on GEnie "...the net exists on good faith and a lot of hand waving." Chuq
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (10/13/87)
Hello Roger, [ This comment is only concerned with the issue of detecting faked articles ] In article <9067@felix.UUCP> bytebug@felix.UUCP (Roger L. Long) writes: >But speaking of liability, just how does one PROVE that statements made on >USENET actually come from the organization or user they say they do? It >is quite easy for me to post an article to the net that would appear to >come from larry@kitty.UUCP saying that "Smith" molested little girls. [munch...] > Roger L. Long Yes you could by faking the header - BUT once the forged message leaves your site it will leave a trail pointing back to you. Every site you connect to will tack on it's own part of the full distribution path and if enough people compare the results it would be simple to determine where it _didn't_ come from by seeking a common root- and in many cases it would be possible to track it back to the actual poster _if_ that site keeps logs. If you do manage to post from several places at once you might cause problems with this method but there are other methods by using article numbers that further help to make undetected forgeries harder to do... Summery: Lets say you faked a header: aa/bb/cc/userX where the path 'aa/bb/cc/userX' is valid - this does NOT mean that all people who normally receive userX will also receive your posting as if it were comming from the correct path. The only way around this is if you happened to be on one of the sole links userX uses to reach the net and if nether of those links keep logging info... Even with the growing number of MSDOS [ et. all ] machines it would be safe to assume that on average they , at some point down the path, connect to a machine that keeps logs. So, the main problem with tracking down fake postings remains on average with the effort it takes... This issue suggest that if the average person wants to detect if their articles are being faked they can suggest to all their friends to keep track of the path headers for articles they receive from them. On many systems this could be a simple as a grep of the news logs at regular intervals ... Best Regards, # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home ) # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.