> What that suggests then is that as a recipient implementing > local decisions you may want to know both the accountable > forwarder and the accountable origin. Is that a reasonable inference? > > First Question: Must DKIM provide both of these pieces of > information to you? > > Second question: Do you really truly care about the forwarder > or is that more an artifact of today's world where it's hard > to look beyond the forwarder?
To determine whether or not something is spam all I need is to know that someone in the path is able to vouch for it. Who that is I don't really care. 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. What really matters is the would-be defaulter's expectation of accountability. Most criminals will risk a perceived 5% chance of being caught, few will risk a 95% chance. But it's the perception that matters. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
