On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 1/22/2020 8:13 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 02:11, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Why are we reading the date-stamping to refer to the date-stamp of the > >> original message? I would think it obvious that the relevant message is the > >> one to the public forum, not the original one which wasn’t to the public > >> forum. > >> > >> -Aris > > > > I think this is tricky. I haven't thought about it too carefuly, but > > here's a possible argument for saying it should be the date stamp on > > the original message. > > A while back (several years now) there were distribution issues, and to make a > point ais523 (I think) forged a date header so that a message showed up in the > forum with a backdate of several years. > > It was generally agreed that, technically speaking, the date used should be > the stamp (typically buried in the full headers) on which the message reaches > the forum. This takes care of a lot of this sort of nonsense. > > However, it's a simple fact that, it would be beyond a reasonable effort for > officers, in recordkeeping timestamps, to have to dig for said headers, given > that most mail clients hide this data and display the send date. > > The uneasy compromise we reached was something like "the send date (most > commonly displayed) is, prima facie, the stamp of record. However, if there > are significant gaps between that date and the listserv arrival date (that > comes to light if messages don't show up for a while), using the listserv > arrival date is warranted." > > Not perfect at all. Naturally this leads to some discrepancies/issues e.g. if > bids come in seconds before an auction ends but aren't delivered until an hour > afterwards. But it would take care of this current issue somewhat.
I'd add that this sort of approach is backed up by decade old precedent; see CFJ 2205. -Aris
