4 ms·
Doing this only provides deniability in public. If this was brought to a court there are enough server logs to build out if that DKIM record was valid along wit
by jabart 2y ago
Doing this only provides deniability in public. If this was brought to a court there are enough server logs to build out if that DKIM record was valid along with a number of DNS history providers.
- singpolyma3 2y agoAs if courts care about any of that. They'll just ask the witness "did you send this email"
- irrational 2y agohttps://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- danesparza 2y agoThe same is true for breaking into a building. An expensive lock won't protect you against a determined attacker.
- speerer 2y agoCounter-example: I've used DKIM as evidence in court.
- withinboredom 2y agoCounter-example example: I've been an expert witness in court to prove an email was a forgery; using DKIM.
- cbozeman 2y agoThat would be a counter-counterexample, wouldn't it?
- jonas21 2y agoNah, it supports the counter-example, so it's a counter-example example.
- singpolyma3 2y agoI'd say it refutes the counter-example. The court doesn't care about DKIM, they care about witness testimony. DKIM might have convinced the witness sometimes though.
- speerer 2y agoCourts typically do not care as much about what an expert witness thinks, as rather why they think it - and whether their reasons hold up enough that the conclusions they support should be accepted.
- inopinatus 2y agoThat is not quite correct. A court is undoubtedly interested in what an expert witness has to say. It is the lawyers appearing before the court that may attempt to play the person not the ball, by variously undermining or bolstering their standing as an expert at all.
- inopinatus 2y agoThe stacking of either term is unnecessary, because all counter-examples are also examples, thus: * an example supporting the counter-example is simply another counter-example, and * an example contradicting the counter-example is, by definition, also another counter-example. Corollary: all examples that can be opposed or contradicted by counter-examples are themselves also counter-examples.
- speerer 2y agoIt'd be funny if we were working together and just telling the same story behind our aliases.
- withinboredom 2y agoMy case was a family court dispute where one parent forged an email from the other parent about the child's care. It was a pretty wild case. After that, I was pretty convinced some people are just evil.
- Groxx 2y agoYea, stuff with kids involved sometimes makes it SUPER unambiguous. Some people are very clearly willing to do anything to anyone, and are doing so as much as possible.
- andriesm 2y agoMost people are not aware of what it means to be sociopath/psychopath/Anti-social personality disorder... Or how common it is in the population (a few percentage points seems reasonably accepted) - Why is this information not made general knowledge? I would argue it should be taught in schools. It's a basic life skill, to be aware of what it means and how common it is. How do you function in society being oblivious of these facts? Basically by perennially becoming a victim to these, or by becoming bitter. Just knowing about it is half the battle. I would also add other dark personality types with potential to cause you real harm to the list - BPD and NPD. School yourself, save yourself a whole lot of bad surprises. Over a lifetime being aware of the existence of these means you are on the lookout for warning signs, and you learn to get better at picking up on warning signs faster.
- jillyboel 2y agoWhich is why you say "No". Then when they try to prove that you did in fact send it, this comes up.
- qingcharles 2y agoWell, if you did send it then you just perjured yourself, so you better hope you don't get caught :)
- jillyboel 2y agoYou'd be lying to the court either way if you did send it and meant to conceal it.
- SmellTheGlove 2y agoRight. There’s generally going to be other evidence. Rotating the DKIM isn’t going to save anyone relying on the shaggy defense.
- tptacek 2y agoThis isn't about evidence. In a court case, discovery and court orders can authenticate email messages even if providers publish their keys; the provider will have a record of having verified the email when it was received. But ATO attackers will not have access to those records.