On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Dan Wing wrote: > >> But more importantly, if you're thinking these things would >> truly have *legal* ramification, then my guess is no >> "good-guys" would touch signing with 4474 with a ten foot >> pole, ever. Do DKIM email signatures have such legal >> implications? > > The closest analogy in DKIM would be someone that operated > a T.37/RFC2305 gateway (which converts fax to email), and > sends those resulting emails with their domain (example.com).
If you're an operator of a DKIM system, and somebody hacks your system and sends mail that's authoritatively from your domain, you can be held liable for the consequences of the email. So could somebody who doesn't run DKIM and is hacked. But bur position is actually weaker than someone who doesn't run DKIM, because you've made a stronger assurance of trust, effectively increasing your responsibility under implicit warranty. -- Dean _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
