Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> I'm not very happy with the introduction of the word 'some' in front of
> 'responsibility'. The way it is mentioned now is like one can say
> 'somewhat dead' or 'a bit pregnant'.
It involves domains. For comparison with the web, how would we describe the
varying degr
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Graham Murray
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 11:51 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Some responsibility
>
> > DKIM is no position today to provi
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Graham Murray
>> claims to do the opposite. What it does provide is assurance of
>> acceptance of liability for messages which are signed. ie if a message
>> is DKIM signed, the signer cannot later claim "It was nothing to do with
>> me, it must have been a forgery"
On 10/30/10 3:05 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On 28/Oct/10 03:36, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> I'll repeat the example given previously. The multiple listing of a
>> header in the h= parameter can not mitigate exploitation of DKIM PASS
>> results where a valuable domain is prefixed to that of large do
On 11/1/10 6:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
>> On Behalf Of Graham Murray
>> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 11:51 PM
>> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
>> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Some res
Putting on my native speaker of American dialect hat, I don't see a useful
difference between "responsibility" and "some responsibility" in this
context. In practice they mean the same thing, and neither means "total
responsibility."
If someone goes to the effort of signing a message and publi
