4 ms·

> No one would even care if the Hunter Biden related emails passed DKIM except for the widespread allegation that they were fake, and no one still cares becaus

> No one would even care if the Hunter Biden related emails passed DKIM except for the widespread allegation that they were fake, and no one still cares because conversation about them passing DKIM is widely suppressed (including on HN, unfortunately, where a post about it was immediately flagged). Uh... no RFC822 headers from the Hunter Biden emails were ever released, certainly none with a passing DKIM signature. I read that Post article with a microscope. This never happened. And in fact, the transparent truth that these appeared to LACK the trivially producible authentication layer is one of the big reasons that the more right-leaning entities among the tech community stayed far away from this subject.

drewbug 6y ago
https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim/blob/main/Meeting%20for%20coffee.eml https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim/blob/main/M...
- newacct583 6y ago
  Interesting, thanks. Odd that this data was never part of the published record from the Post, and that Graham's source is apparently secret? Curious what you make of that? If the Post had it, they'd surely have released it. I guess it's sort of academic at this point, but it does point to a few different actors pushing this story in different directions.
  - nullc 6y ago
    > If the Post had it, they'd surely have released it. It's extremely rare for journalists in traditional media to publish email headers, even when people are accusing messages of being inauthentic and the DKIM would go a long way towards certifying them and when people are begging for them. I think I'm aware of only one other instance, though I've personally begged journalists for headers multiple times even in some cases where I was a subject of the article and not some random nobody. From the perspective of protecting sources it's probably good advice to avoid publishing any kind of opaque header-stuff. But also, most readers wouldn't know what to do with the information and -- less charitably-- publishing evidence moves away from the framework where readers accept the reporters word on blind faith. Your position was entirely understandable: I declined to link to the repo or the two flagged HN threads about it, though I considered it, because I thought it would increase the risk that my comment would get flagged. I think your reply had the surprising consequence of making a really good example at how effective the suppression of info like this is at distorting the public discourse.

drewbug 6y ago

https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim/blob/main/Meeting%20for%20coffee.eml https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim/blob/main/M...

newacct583 6y ago
Interesting, thanks. Odd that this data was never part of the published record from the Post, and that Graham's source is apparently secret? Curious what you make of that? If the Post had it, they'd surely have released it. I guess it's sort of academic at this point, but it does point to a few different actors pushing this story in different directions.
- nullc 6y ago
  > If the Post had it, they'd surely have released it. It's extremely rare for journalists in traditional media to publish email headers, even when people are accusing messages of being inauthentic and the DKIM would go a long way towards certifying them and when people are begging for them. I think I'm aware of only one other instance, though I've personally begged journalists for headers multiple times even in some cases where I was a subject of the article and not some random nobody. From the perspective of protecting sources it's probably good advice to avoid publishing any kind of opaque header-stuff. But also, most readers wouldn't know what to do with the information and -- less charitably-- publishing evidence moves away from the framework where readers accept the reporters word on blind faith. Your position was entirely understandable: I declined to link to the repo or the two flagged HN threads about it, though I considered it, because I thought it would increase the risk that my comment would get flagged. I think your reply had the surprising consequence of making a really good example at how effective the suppression of info like this is at distorting the public discourse.