--- Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > THe term I prefer is "accountable". "Responsible" goes a bit too far in this > context since it carries with it some connotation of authorship.
... > DKIM isn't supposed to provide a general content signing service, or a general > nonrepudiation service, or any of the other myriad things that can be built > on top of "signatures the cryptographic primitive". The service DKIM provides > is the attachment of an accountable identity to a specific message. Nothing > more and nothing less. Couldn't agree more. The signature mechanism is purely the means to the end. The end being a reliable, accountable identity at a useful granularity. As a well known personality at AOL says repeatedly, "I want to be able to pick up the phone and call someone". It is a pity that cryptography is involved. From a personal perspective it was the last, worst choice because nothing better seems apparent. Mark. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
