> If the Post had it, they'd surely have released it.
It's extremely rare for journalists in traditional media to publish email headers, even when people are accusing messages of being inauthentic and the DKIM would go a long way towards certifying them and when people are begging for them. I think I'm aware of only one other instance, though I've personally begged journalists for headers multiple times even in some cases where I was a subject of the article and not some random nobody.
From the perspective of protecting sources it's probably good advice to avoid publishing any kind of opaque header-stuff. But also, most readers wouldn't know what to do with the information and -- less charitably-- publishing evidence moves away from the framework where readers accept the reporters word on blind faith.
Your position was entirely understandable: I declined to link to the repo or the two flagged HN threads about it, though I considered it, because I thought it would increase the risk that my comment would get flagged. I think your reply had the surprising consequence of making a really good example at how effective the suppression of info like this is at distorting the public discourse.
It's extremely rare for journalists in traditional media to publish email headers, even when people are accusing messages of being inauthentic and the DKIM would go a long way towards certifying them and when people are begging for them. I think I'm aware of only one other instance, though I've personally begged journalists for headers multiple times even in some cases where I was a subject of the article and not some random nobody.
From the perspective of protecting sources it's probably good advice to avoid publishing any kind of opaque header-stuff. But also, most readers wouldn't know what to do with the information and -- less charitably-- publishing evidence moves away from the framework where readers accept the reporters word on blind faith.
Your position was entirely understandable: I declined to link to the repo or the two flagged HN threads about it, though I considered it, because I thought it would increase the risk that my comment would get flagged. I think your reply had the surprising consequence of making a really good example at how effective the suppression of info like this is at distorting the public discourse.