domainkeys-feedbackbase02(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com wrote:
--- "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...
The one thing that the Bayesian experience has shown is that
machine-learned patterns can be pretty good at picking out
the wheat from the chaff. So yes, it seems at least plausible
that multiple identities as input to some sort of statistical
function might be helpful. I don't happen to think that that's
the primary benefit of DKIM, but as a side benefit it seems
like a not bad outcome in the more-information-better domain.
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?
Well, we pretty much have a situation where there's absolutely
no standardization of filtering now. I'm going to guess that
you don't see that as being in need of standardization even
if it does lead to bad outcomes in some cases (outcomes
that are at least fate-shared with the receiver).
In short, will signers be left in the dark wrt how relevant their particular
accountability claim is to subsequent recipients?
Can it be otherwise? I mean, signers can't dictate how a
receiver will use their signature, RFC, BCP or no.
Mike
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org