She wasn't a lawyer; your PR clone suspicion is correct. She was not a technologist. Her function was only to testify that an IP address matched an account. Bell's lawyer on cross-examination never raised the point that a message posted to cpunx goes through multiple servers (including the majordomo ones), all of which have the opportunity to add false headers to the message. -Declan On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:30:25AM +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
auto211076@hushmail.com wrote:
Second Day: Jim Bell trial
[...]
The next witness was Hilda Wong Muramoto who is a subpoena manager for @Home Corporation. In direct testimony she stated that Bell had a cable modem account, that the "DNS designation and sub-domain" as well as the IP address were hard-wired, and that the account did not cover dial-up connections. She said that the IP address was 24.16.209.166 and that the DNS number was C1099371-A. The DNS name that was captured in the e-mail that Bell allegedly sent to cypherpunks was encrv1.wa.home.com. She claimed that those "numbers" could not appear on anyone else's e-mail.
"subpoena manager"? What in Tacoma is a "subpoena manager"? Do subpoenas need managing?
It sounds like they employ someone just to get sued. Presumably that means she is a PR clone or a lawyer. Why should a PR type know anything about DNS & SMTP, any more than I (or Choate) should be an expert on the law?
If I was a grumpy judge and a company sent me a "subpoena manager" I would be very tempted to send them right back & get someone who knew what they are talking about.
Ken