What that suggests then is that as a recipient implementing
local decisions you may want to know both the accountable
forwarder and the accountable origin. Is that a reasonable inference?
First Question: Must DKIM provide both of these pieces of
information to you?
Second question: Do you really truly care about the forwarder
or is that more an artifact of today's world where it's hard
to look beyond the forwarder?
To determine whether or not something is spam all I need is to know that
someone in the path is able to vouch for it. Who that is I don't really
care.
As to whether accountability is binary or not, of course there are
shades of grey. There is always going to be a probability that the party
cannot be held accountable.
What really matters is the would-be defaulter's expectation of
accountability. Most criminals will risk a perceived 5% chance of being
caught, few will risk a 95% chance. But it's the perception that
matters.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org