--- Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:
THe term I prefer is "accountable". "Responsible" goes a bit too far in this
context since it carries with it some connotation of authorship.
...
DKIM isn't supposed to provide a general content signing service, or a
general
nonrepudiation service, or any of the other myriad things that can be built
on top of "signatures the cryptographic primitive". The service DKIM provides
is the attachment of an accountable identity to a specific message. Nothing
more and nothing less.
Couldn't agree more. The signature mechanism is purely the means to the end.
The end being a reliable, accountable identity at a useful granularity. As a
well known personality at AOL says repeatedly, "I want to be able to pick up
the phone and call someone".
It is a pity that cryptography is involved. From a personal perspective it was
the last, worst choice because nothing better seems apparent.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org