The question: "Prove that the topology on a space X is Hausdorff iff the diagonal $\Delta=\{ (x,x) \mid x\in X\}$ is closed in the topological product $X \times X$." is in Munkres Section 17.
I would assume that the proof for the product space $X \times X \times X$, and so on, would be very similar to the product space $X \times X$. But what if we are given an arbitrary product? Does the answer depend on what topology we give? (Box, product, uniform, little ell 2, etc.) Or is the diagonal always closed, no matter what topology we give?
Let $I$ be any index set of size at least 2 (to avoid trivialities, or we have no real product), and consider the set $X^I$. A topology $\mathcal{T}$ on this set I will call "acceptable" if for all projection maps $p_i: X^I \to X$ defined by $\pi_i(f) = f(i)$ are continuous. We have lots of acceptable topologies among which the usual product topology and the box topology. (Also on powers of the reals the $\ell^2$ topology and the uniform metric topology).
Let $e:X \to X^I$ be the diagonal embedding that sends $x \in X$ to $e(x)$ where $e(x): I \to X$ is the constant map with value $x$.
Then if $X^I$ has an acceptable topology, and if $X$ is Hausdorff then $e[X]$ is closed in $X^I$:
If $X$ is Hausdorff, let $f \notin e[X]$, so $f$ is non-constant: there are two $i_1, i_2 \in I$ such that $f(i_1) \neq f(i_2)$. These two points have disjoint open neighbourhoods in $X$, say $f(i_1) \in U$, $f(i_2) \in V$ and $U \cap V = \emptyset$. Define $O = \pi_{i_1}^{-1}[U] \cap \pi_{i_2}^{-1}[V]$, which is an open set in $X^I$, as we have an acceptable topology on $X^I$, i.e. projections are continuous. Clearly $f \in O$ as $\pi_{i_1}(f) = f(i_1) \in U$ etc. And no function in $O$ can be constant as the values on $i_1$ and $i_2$ will always differ for any $g \in O$. So we have a neighbourhood of $f$ that misses $e[X]$ so $e[X]$ is closed.
Of course, is we take any topology on $X^I$, say the indiscrete one, then $e[X]$ will not be closed, but then the topology on $X^I$ has nothing to do with the topology of $X$ which seems to be unintuitive.
To go back from $e[X]$ being closed to $X$ being Hausdorff needs some other idea, maybe. In the $X^2$ case, the basic open sets are explicitly used.