The malaprops was very real to us as well.
... in the form of regurgitation, in a grammatically
weak message allegedly attributed to the IRS, without enough
information to enable a confirmation.
Yes, the language usage was not perfect. But it was a lot better than
what is so sadly typical of Usenet, the World-Wide Web, and even a little
bit better than today's newspapers. There were mistakes other than the
one you pointed out. But if you are going to criticise language, you
should double-check yours. "Malapropism" generally refers to the swapping
of phonemes so that the result has a humorous meaning. I never heard of a
"malaprops" before your critique. "Allegedly attributed" might be
considered inaccurate or at least wordy. My point is not to criticise
you. I make errors like that in informal writing also--and I am
considered an excellent proofreader and editor.
Furthermore, speaking as a technical editor, I protest your
characterization of the IRS as being known for good writing. The tax
instruction books are AVERAGE in readability.
As for regurgitation: well, it's certainly true there's far too much of
that these days.
As for confirmation: the name Andrew Fried was partial confirmation for
any one who had read the net-abuse FAQ. And a Web search for "Andrew
Fried IRS" put a "regurgitation" of the same gentleman's first
annouuncement of his mail-server at the top of the list.
(For entertainment, it also turned up "IRS gets costly letter about
revenge" and "Court slaps IRS down for overreacting to insult during
audit.")