Spoofing email is trivial, from what I understand. There are ways to provide authenticity proofs for senders. While they are implementable and implemented, they are not required from what I can tell. So, claiming the email headers as some kind of proof of anything is not definitive because, for all I know, you are someone who is spoofing Mike Palij's email address.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spoofing Good thing I'm at my posting limit for the day, or this could go on for a while, because it is, IMO, impossible to resolve. As the saying goes, "On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog" (Steiner, 1993). You aren't a dog, are you? You've seen Benji, right? ***** But, all that is a side track… it is clear to me that the young man was completely aware of what was going on with him. While he was calling this spoofed person the love of his life, reports are widespread that he was dating other women all through the period. That behavior wouldn't be definitive, for sure, but it is suggestive that one vital failing here is in the press for not doing at least a minimal amount of fact checking before running with the story of the woman and her death. When the story of how they met was returned with vague descriptions, and contradictions if what I've heard is the case, why didn't the reporters chase it a bit? (Can anyone say confirmation bias?) ***** I declare I'm not a dog… but, you'll never know for sure, will you? And, I declare that I don't think Mike's a dog… but I don't know for sure, do you? LOL! Paul On Jan 21, 2013, at 2:33 PM, Mike Palij wrote: > From: "Mike Palij" <[email protected]> > > >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:42:38 -0800, Paul C Bernhardt wrote: >> I've not seen the movie, don't intend to, either. > > That's okay. There is no need for anyone to actually access > sources in order to talk about a subject. Researchers do it > all the time when they just read the abstract of an article. 1/2 ;-) > >> I've known about sock puppets for decades. This is just a >> personal version of sock puppet from what I can see. > > I think that you might mean "romantic" instead of "personal" but > perhaps you mean something else. In any event, sock puppets > serve a very different purpose from a catfish. I'll leave it to the > reader as an exercise to distinguish between the two. > >> I was making a point, I thought, about the impossibility of us >> knowing whom others in our online lives may actually be (or >> not be). what do we really know about each other? >> Can I really know you are the actual Mike Palij of New York >> University, or some dunderhead that is using his persona and >> that the real Mike Palij of New York University is either ignorant >> of this deception or does not care about it. can you prove it? > > Anyone claiming an academic affiliation and is using the email > account provided by their institution can be easily identified if > one can get a complete email from that person. Long time internet > users with any real experience with internet and Usenet culture > have been verifying users since the 1980s. Perhaps you are unfamiliar > with the header structure of email message? For one source, see: > http://whatismyipaddress.com/email-header > Sock puppets and catfish don't use such systems because they > can be easily caught, instead they use commercial ISPs and mail > services where the service providers vary in how much they care > about investigating any particular user unless done under a court > order. > > You could verify that I am NYU's Palij by getting an email from me > and going over the header. Consider the header from the Tips Digest > I receive via email: > >>> Delivered-To: [email protected] > > This identifies my email address at NYU. Hard to fake an *.edu address. > > The long version of the trip the email took through the internet is below. > Technically, one should read from the bottom up because the sender info > is at the bottom and the receiver info is at the top. The intermediate > "Received from" statements identify which systems the email traveled > through. > >>> Received: by 10.182.106.232 with SMTP id gx8csp171695obb; >>> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:00:48 -0800 (PST) >>> X-Received: by 10.220.156.10 with SMTP id u10mr18133360vcw.28.1358744448109; >>> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:00:48 -0800 (PST) >>> Return-Path: <[email protected]> >>> Received: from gmx2.home.nyu.edu (GMX12.HOME.NYU.EDU. [128.122.118.139]) >>> by mx.google.com with ESMTP id >>> u10si10297679vdv.131.2013.01.20.21.00.47; >>> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:00:48 -0800 (PST) >>> Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 128.122.118.246 is neither permitted nor >>> denied by best guess >record for domain of >>> [email protected]) client-ip=128.122.118.246; >>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; >>> spf=neutral (google.com: 128.122.118.246 is neither permitted nor >>> denied by best guess record for domain of >>> [email protected]) >>> smtp.mail=bounce-23198->[email protected] >>> Received: from mx6.nyu.edu (MX6.NYU.EDU [128.122.118.246]) >>> by gmx2.home.nyu.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0L50bFT011808 >> < for <[email protected]>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:00:37 -0500 (EST) >>> Received: from r1.home.nyu.edu (R1.HOME.NYU.EDU [128.122.118.240]) >>> by mx6.nyu.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r0L50WEU009820 >>> for <[email protected]>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:00:35 -0500 (EST) >>> Received: from fsulist.frostburg.edu ([131.118.80.20]) >>> by r1.home.nyu.edu with SMTP; 21 Jan 2013 00:00:35 -0500 > > The information below is self-explanatory. > >> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:00:01 -0400 >> Subject: tips digest: January 20, 2013 >> To: "tips digest recipients" <[email protected]> >> From: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest" >> <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" >> <[email protected]> >> Precedence: bulk > > The ID given the digest email sent from the Lyris program. > >>> Message-Id: >>> <LYR!S-13415-23198-2013.01.21-00.00.01--mp26#[email protected]> > > Note: ! was substituted in Lyris above because the Lyris program doesn't > like messages that contain full header info > > One would have to be extremely knowledgeable about header structure > in order to fake who received it and sent it. Moreover, there are logs of > emails that are received and sent which can be checked to verify whether > the header info is correct. Finally, one can always call the institution > and ask is the person working there or affiliated with it (something that > can also be done by using the staff directory on the institution's website > though this is not always up to date). > >> Can I? > > You sure can. Just ask me to send you an email. Or ask Bill for a > full copy of one of my posts to Tips. > > However, if I were to suddenly start using a commercial ISP and mail > service, it would be a lot harder to verify who I am. But, as the movie > "Catfish" shows, it can be done. But you would know that if you saw > the movie. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > >> On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:53 AM, Mike Palij wrote: >> >>> I really must ask this question of Paul: >>> >>> Have you seen the movie "Catfish"? > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=23209 > or send a blank email to > leave-23209-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=23217 or send a blank email to leave-23217-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
