Craig Wright’s Email to Partner Dave Kleiman Is *Not* “Provably False”, Here’s Why
The rise in false news, scams and its likes seem to increase within the crypto sphere as time goes by. The next, to make the list is a thread that was published on r/bitcoin forum dubbed as, “Craig S Wright’s Email to Dave Kleiman Is Provably False”.
After in depth analysis, it has been noted that the author, u/fbonomi confused themselves and did not have a clear picture prior to making such a firm statement that would have rid Dr Craig Wright of his name and reputation!
The author argues that the leaked e-mail, which dated back to 2008, is “provably false”. Coin Geek shared that the email domain in place was different from that of one that was registered the following year. Without analyzing the facts, u/fbonomi jumped into conclusion, however, Dr. Wright himself clarified what went on during that time and why the domain in the reply was different.
In particular, Dr Wright operated an exchange server between the years 2008 and 2009, as an educational tool for his CSU University teachings. Since the exchange server switched on several instances due to the development of the company’s structure, the need for altering the domains came about, as per Coin Geek.
While an extensive look on the procedure as to how primary email domain changing works was reported on pratical365.com, it is clear that the main feature responsible is that of “Accepted Domains”.
It is this respective feature that allows an exchange server to determine the domain names it will support along with the way in which they will be classified or perceived. Accepted domains supposedly come in two types, which include authoritative and relay domains. Depending on the type, other options like that of the SMTP namespaces will be needed to associate with related objects. The secondary address will then be added, which will automatically will be set as the default reply address.
As for Dr Wright’s stance on the issue in place, he explained that unifying mailboxes tend to result in the change of the domain. In particular, he said:
“The reason was to maintain my emails across companies. As we moved from domain to domain, I wanted to keep my old email stream. It is standard practice and as I was teaching an exchange course at CSU, something I am well versed in.”
This shows that the author should have further investigated the issue, prior to releasing a robust statement. Quality data seems to be a lacking factor within the crypto sphere, which ultimately either induces anxiety or disdain for the digital assets and technology at hand. What do you think must be done to maximize accuracy of shared data?