--- "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Ug. What a terrible choice of words I made. I meant to ask whether there can usefully be multiple accountable parties for an email. I struggle to understand how a recipient could usefully use that information _consistently_. I like the "author" but I don't like the forwarder? I like the forwarder, but I don't like the "author"? What about thee accountable parties, "author", first forwarder, List? What about five accountable parties... Sure, we can conjure up some cases where two _might_ be useful to a subset of interested recipients, but even then is the plan to let each implementor/recipient decide on the relevance of each accountable party or will their be guidance, BCP, standards? In short, will signers be left in the dark wrt how relevant their particular accountability claim is to subsequent recipients? Should signers give directions to forwarders not to sign, so as not to taint the "author" accountability? Seems like sometimes you might want that, sometimes you might not. Mark. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
