[ietf-dkim] Not exactly not a threat analysis

[domainkeys-feedbackbase02 at yahoo.com]

--- Ned Freed <ned.freed at mrochek.com> 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.