4 ms·

Why in the world are you and the op calling this "editing"? Like, the OP clearly does not understand the distinction between rendering the email and storing it

by jsnell 1y ago

Why in the world are you and the op calling this "editing"? Like, the OP clearly does not understand the distinction between rendering the email and storing it, given their "evidence". But you do understand the difference. Why take their confusion at face value like that?

john01dav 1y ago
I was answering the question about why it would be a problem if the evidence is correct. If the evidence is valid is a separate issue which I made a separate comment about.
chrisjj 1y ago
The OP is not calling editing. And storing? How is that in any way relevant?
- jsnell 1y ago
  Fair enough, sorry about that. You called it "tampering" and "alteration". But honestly I don't see any distinction to "editing". All of those imply that the email is being changed. It isn't. The email is stored on disk just like it was sent, and that is observable in a number of ways (show original, fetch it with imap, forward the email). And that's why storage is relevant. Your complaint was apparently just about how the email is rendered. There is no standard for how that should be done. Like, did you complain that your emails were being tampered with back in the day when you wrote them in a terminal with a fixed width font but someone viewed them in Outlook with a variable width font? I'd like to say that of course you didn't, because what would be a totally absurd complaint, but then again so is your actual complaint as well.
  - chrisjj 1y ago
    > You called it "tampering" Yes. > and "alteration" No. > But honestly I don't see any distinction to "editing". All of those imply that the email is being changed. It isn't. The email is stored on disk This isn't about stored form. It is about displayed form - which is all that most users get. > Your complaint was apparently just about how the email is rendered. There is no standard for how that should be done. The standard is the expectation it is faithful to the sent form. This case fails that. > Like, did you complain that your emails were being tampered with back in the day when you wrote them in a terminal with a fixed width font but someone viewed them in Outlook with a variable width font? No. But someone did complain "Why are the tables messed up?" :) Fortunately that wasn't a security issue.

by jsnell 1y ago

john01dav 1y ago

I was answering the question about why it would be a problem if the evidence is correct. If the evidence is valid is a separate issue which I made a separate comment about.

chrisjj 1y ago

The OP is not calling editing. And storing? How is that in any way relevant?

jsnell 1y ago
Fair enough, sorry about that. You called it "tampering" and "alteration". But honestly I don't see any distinction to "editing". All of those imply that the email is being changed. It isn't. The email is stored on disk just like it was sent, and that is observable in a number of ways (show original, fetch it with imap, forward the email). And that's why storage is relevant. Your complaint was apparently just about how the email is rendered. There is no standard for how that should be done. Like, did you complain that your emails were being tampered with back in the day when you wrote them in a terminal with a fixed width font but someone viewed them in Outlook with a variable width font? I'd like to say that of course you didn't, because what would be a totally absurd complaint, but then again so is your actual complaint as well.
- chrisjj 1y ago
  > You called it "tampering" Yes. > and "alteration" No. > But honestly I don't see any distinction to "editing". All of those imply that the email is being changed. It isn't. The email is stored on disk This isn't about stored form. It is about displayed form - which is all that most users get. > Your complaint was apparently just about how the email is rendered. There is no standard for how that should be done. The standard is the expectation it is faithful to the sent form. This case fails that. > Like, did you complain that your emails were being tampered with back in the day when you wrote them in a terminal with a fixed width font but someone viewed them in Outlook with a variable width font? No. But someone did complain "Why are the tables messed up?" :) Fortunately that wasn't a security issue.