Also! If you have questions/ feedback I’d love to chat! I really do believe that this is a better solution than what is currently happening, but I’m sure that there’s more I can do to make it better.
==Mike > On Aug 10, 2020, at 7:36 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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> _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
