ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] Is accountability singular?

2005-08-24 07:56:54
--- "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:

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.

Ug. What a terrible choice of words I made. I meant to ask whether there can
usefully be multiple accountable parties for an email. I struggle to understand
how a recipient could usefully use that information _consistently_.

I like the "author" but I don't like the forwarder? I like the forwarder, but I
don't like the "author"?

What about thee accountable parties, "author", first forwarder, List?

What about five accountable parties...

Sure, we can conjure up some cases where two _might_ be useful to a subset of
interested recipients, but even then is the plan to let each
implementor/recipient decide on the relevance of each accountable party or will
their be guidance, BCP, standards?

In short, will signers be left in the dark wrt how relevant their particular
accountability claim is to subsequent recipients?

Should signers give directions to forwarders not to sign, so as not to taint
the "author" accountability? Seems like sometimes you might want that,
sometimes you might not.

 
Mark.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>