12 ms·
If this is not done, your emails are “non-repudiable”, meaning that if they are leaked, anyone (eg, journalists, haters) can verify that they are authentic, and
by tjoff 3y ago
If this is not done, your emails are “non-repudiable”, meaning that if they are leaked, anyone (eg, journalists, haters) can verify that they are authentic, and prove that to others. This is not desirable (for you).
Not convinced, the bigger problem today seems to be that someone claims that you sent something you didn't and if you do the above you can't disprove that.
You could sign your emails, but then the whole point of publishing the private keys is negated anyway...
- gorgoiler 3y agoDouble DKIM? The first signature for your future proof-of-authorship needs and the second for regular DKIM mechanisms to accept your email? The first key isn’t ever published but you keep it if you need to prove your email was written by you. The second key is rotated regularly with the private key published so that always have the ability to claim “I didn’t write that”.
- A1kmm 3y agoBut then you could just have a third key to use in place of the first for anything you think you might want to get out of later. You could have a mechanism to prove two emails are signed with the same key, without revealing the public key (e.g. using a zero-knowledge technique like zk-SNARKs) - but that might then be functionally equivalent to just revealing the key in terms of non-repudiation anyway.
- remram 3y agoThe comment above asked for a way to prove it was not written by you.
- nulbyte 3y ago> You could sign your emails, but then the whole point of publishing the private keys is negated anyway... Not really. The point is to deliver emails. Once it's delivered, it doesn't matter as much.
- tjoff 3y ago... of publishing the private keys ...