(posted at 07:11PM BST) 
(I have to tread carefully in this post as it may be considered legally contentious by my previous employer - therefore, I'll state that except where explicitly mentioned, everything here is fact rather than mere opinion)
First, a bit of background... a lot of people fail to realize that I handled abuse reports on a daily basis for at least one past employer and I still do so for my own customers - tracking the source of messages is very easy for those who are versed in the practice.
Coming back to the present, I made a journal post on the 24th September 2006 in relation to an e-mail which my previous employer sent out to all of its' staff concerning a network outage - things which I like pointing out given that my employers' uptime was at least three nines (99.9%) while I was employed by them and this has fallen considerably since my departure and the appointment of a new ICT Manager and Assistant ICT Manager who have seen fit to redesign the network to include such wondrous features as using Windows Server as a border firewall.
Anyway, I received a mail from a 'Pete Davidson' concerning the post I made on the 24th September 2006 - the contents of which are below:
You may find this useful:
<snip contents of post made on 24th September 2006>
This was a linux box which one of the IT team told me about, a link between Grimsby & Toynton that hey are thinking of replacing.
This appeared to be an individual who had contact with one or more members of my previous employers' ICT Department and had been given more information about the fault than the original e-mail had been sent out - more than that, they appeared to be familiar with my journal as well - else they would never have responded to my journal post.
Intrigued, I did a bit more digging - the headers from the mail which 'Pete Davidson' sent me are below:
Received: from bay0-omc2-s21.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.157]) by turrican.spilsby.net with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from <petedavidson10@hotmail.co.uk>) id 1GUTx6-00049U-GA for tez@spilsby.net; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:59:48 +0100
Received: from hotmail.com ([65.54.185.22]) by bay0-omc2-s21.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:59:47 -0700
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:59:47 -0700
Received: from 80.5.102.104 by by15fd.bay15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:59:44 GMT
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 20:59:44 +0100
From: "Pete Davidson" <petedavidson10@hotmail.co.uk>
To: "Terry Froy" <tez@spilsby.net>
Message-ID: <BAY15-F22CEF0DCAC0FCF6458811E9B1F0@phx.gbl>
I had a sneaking suspicion that I had seen that particular IP address before so I grepped through my last 24 months worth of mailserver logs and was amazed at what I found:
Received: from mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com (mta08-winn.ispmail.ntl.com [::ffff:81.103.221.48]) by uridium.spilsby.net with esmtp; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:53:31 +0000 id 0001381E.441F164B.00005995
Received: from aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com ([81.103.221.35]) by mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with ESMTP id <20060320204917.JNSI29040.mtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com> for <tez@spilsby.net>; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:49:17 +0000
Received: from xppro ([80.5.102.104]) by aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com with SMTP id <20060320204917.UJQG18957.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@xppro> for <tez@spilsby.net>; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:49:17 +0000
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 20:49:21 +0000
From: "Jonathan Newson" <jonathan.newson@ntlworld.com>
To: "Terry Froy" <tez@spilsby.net>
Message-ID: <000701c64c5f$c4e7fda0$0302a8c0@xppro>
'Pete Davidson' makes a claim that the box that failed at Linkage's Weelsby Campus was running Linux but as I know the IP address of that box because I set it up, I asked a good friend of mine in the United States to perform an nmap fingerprint scan to determine the host operating system of that server (Windows 2003 Server, in case you were wondering).
The reason that I had somebody else perform the nmap fingerprint scan was to ensure that Linkage didn't try and make some stupid attempt at suing me under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 - a probe isn't classed as an 'access attempt' but given their attempt to shut my journal down earlier this year through claims that I had slandered them which ultimately had no merit, I wouldn't have put it past them.
So, the facts are these:
1:) Jonathan Newson is currently employed as the ICT Manager at Linkage Community Trust.
2:) 80.5.102.104 has been used by Jonathan Newson in the past to send e-mail to me.
3:) 80.5.102.104 has been used by 'Pete Davidson' to send e-mail to me.
4:) Jonathan Newson, or somebody else using his Internet connection, has attempted to fool me into thinking he/she is somebody else - a violation of NTL's Acceptable Use Policy (the IP belongs to an NTL netblock).
5:) Jonathan Newson, or somebody else using his Internet connection, under the guise of 'Pete Davidson', is peddling false information in an attempt to get me to retract my post made on the 24th September 2006 - sorry, no can do! - that post is entirely factual and as I told David Bradshaw in private e-mails, I am only concerned that my journal is 100% factual and not whether it shows Linkage in a good light or not.
I will stress that the IP address referenced in these mails does not belong to Linkage and I am implying no wrongdoing on the part of Linkage whatsoever.
The moral of the story: If you have something to say to me, do it from your own e-mail account using your own name - if you want to send something to me anonymously, simply state that in your mail. | 
