Some elements of the story sound true - while some elements are a bit hard to take in ...<div><br></div><div>EG: </div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099"><br></font></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099">1) How did he use the *.PST to find the &quot;RTS&quot; and Server Info  ? (which am assuming means &quot;Return to Sender&quot;)</font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099"><br></font></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099">Does one not need the active Outlook account password to open/view the PST ?</font></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099"><br>
</font></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099">In which case, if one is already logged into the computer, then one does not need to open the PST but just view emails in Outlook.</font></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099"><br>
</font></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099"><br></font></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099">2) Why blog about it in public, when the court case is hot ?  If he/she was the only Security-Tester, then definitely/ IEBC knows him/her by name</font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099"><br></font></div><div><font face="tahoma, sans-serif" color="#000099">   Is it not breach of contract to make this info public, especially in these times ?</font></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>BR/</div><div>SN</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>