Hiya, On 11/08/2020 00:27, [email protected] wrote: > Funny you all should ask! I coauthored a paper about exactly this earlier > this year: > > https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/390
I recall reading that, and must look at it again because I don't recall why it was better than just publishing private keys when one is finished with 'em (plus a bit). S. > > ==Mike > >> On Aug 10, 2020, at 7:06 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 10/08/2020 23:36, Brandon Long wrote: >>> Isn't publishing the private key the opposite of recovery? >>> >>> Ie, it's basically a mechanism for plausible deniability. >>> >>> "The key is public, anyone could have made that message." >> >> Yep. And for DKIM, it's a mechanism I'd myself like to see >> well-defined and used. >> >> Cheers, >> S. >> <0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf-dkim mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-dkim mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
