LE> It has been brought to my attention the fact that potentially
LE> defamatory material has allegedly been disseminated on Fidonet
LE> under my name, using the same template as my own messages, and
LE> purportedly originating from my system (ZWSBBS, 3:634/396).

Sure Lew, we believe you, we do, really we do, truly really we do |-)

LE> Four persons have recently contacted me within the space of
LE> two days to inform me that at least one specific organization
LE> is covertly attempting to investigate this matter,

Cant have been very covert then can it Lew ?

LE> presumably with a view to holding me responsible for some real or
LE> imagined loss. Whilst I deplore this unprofessional attack, I will
LE> not at this time take any counteraction besides issuing this message.

You could try stamping your tiny foot and see if that helps.

LE> Unfortunately, I have been unable to secure copies of
LE> the alleged messages, and the respondents have been
LE> unable to provide specific details about anything.

How convenient.

LE> I would remind all readers of all echos
LE> in which I post of a number of facts :

These arent 'facts' they are in fact mostly
being very economical with the truth.

LE> * Fidonet technology is insecure.

In some respects it is. In others, particularly for sysops
like yourself, thats being VERY economical with the truth.

LE> It is easy for any individual to simulate routing and
LE> program control information and, by duplicating the style
LE> and form of another person's messages, create fraudulent
LE> statements which appear to originate from the second party.

In some situations, IF that was all that was involved, sure.
Its not, and you are being very economical with the truth indeed.

LE> All that is required is access to the correct software, which is
LE> freely available for public download from many BBSs, including my own.

Fraid not Lew, thats a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

LE> * Even given a proven link, the password access systems used
LE> in Fidonet-style bulletin boards such as my own are such that
LE> it is still easy for an unauthorized person to create and post
LE> fraudulent messages purporting to originate from another party.

Fraid not Lew, more porkys. Particularly when
someone attempts to do things securely.

LE> Message-by-message logs are NOT retained. My own system,
LE> for example, deletes session logs automatically each week.

Even when you claim that this is being done to you. Pull the other one Lew.

LE> * It is impossible to trace fraudulent
LE> activity unless such activity is repeated,

Thats crap too.

LE> and it is technologically unfeasible to attempt such tracing.

More crap.

LE> * Fidonet is an amateur network and, per se, does not
LE> require or desire more advanced security policies.

They are still used anyway. For precisely that problem.

LE> In fact, it is SPECIFICALLY forbidden in most echomail
LE> areas to apply digital signatures to messages.

Crap, SOME do. And that aint the only security available, as you know full well

LE> * Even for systems where such policies ARE required or thought
LE> advisable to implement, legal precedents exist in a number of
LE> countries, including Australia, which show that, effectively,
LE> a message placed in public email streams is untracable.

Bullshit.

LE> * It is not in anyone's interest, including my
LE> own, to broadcast damaging material publicly.

And periodically people get caught out doing that sort of thing
anyway, even tho it clearly wasnt in their interest to do so.

LE> * It is not feasible for myself nor anyone else to monitor
LE> all the Fidonet echo traffic (many megabytes of text per day)
LE> on the remote chance of intercepting a fraudulent transmission.

Yes, but then that isnt the only possibility either.

LE> Readers will note that I always append at least one voice contact
LE> number to the bottom of my messages (where echo regulations permit).
LE> Any person who takes exception to any posting I make, or believes that a
LE> posting with my name attached contains offensive or defamatory material,
LE> should contact me on one of those numbers and seek an explanation, or at
LE> least verify that the message did originate from myself.

And they are convinced you have defamed them, they are MOST unlikely
to do that Lew. And a clever defamer would just fix that number too.

You can change your underwear now Lew |-)

--- PQWK202