> The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Not even mentioning DKIM because of

> The DKIM issue has been brought up, and there are legitimate reasons why that assertion is not included in the Wikipedia. Not even mentioning DKIM because of the unsupported possibility that Google's private key could be compromised (by hacker or rogue employee) is a weak excuse when opposing claims ("the shop had no contact information for its owner") just seem to be pulled out of thin air. Even if they don't want to state that it's verified (again I think the email has met a far higher standard than opposing claims already being stated definitively), at least a mention of the DKIM verification and its limitations (like how it doesn't say anything about context) is surely warranted. Also my main claim is that Wikipedia is wrong/misleading here. Something false being included in the article is still false even if they have policy reasons (like RS requirements) for doing so. I'd say that claim three does already violate their policy, but I'm not defending their policy as a perfect diviner of truth.