shinigami

What monumental cowardice. The "high ideological rhetoric" is something not even mildly "ideological". And then it's their fault that the shitty dudebros of HN had a fit?

Please ban me from the orange hellsite so that I'm never tempted on commenting something ever again, while you reflect on why you're defending such garbage people

> The layperson doesn't have to understand the intricacies of email protocols, it's enough that they consider email to be non-repudiable.

They consider it non-repudiable not because of DKIM, it's just a common misconception. People believed that before DKIM. They will still believe it if Google discloses its DKIM keys.

They totally should not believe it, though.

> So if I can't give the exact number of times that DKIM has helped in dispute resolution, then my argument "has zero basis in reality"?

Of course that's not what I meant, I don't care about exact numbers. Just give me some evidence that DKIM is relevant to solve disputes anywhere else other than in the minds of HN commenters. Otherwise your claim that the world is better off now with non-repudiable email has no basis in reality.

> they are choosing non-repudiation over privacy

They totally are not. They have no idea what are the properties of email. As an example, a non-tech friend of mine was once surprised that email does not provide any confidentiality.

> The only reason why laypersons consider email to be non-repudiable is because of additional protocols like SPF and DKIM that were implemented after the original spec

You really think that laypersons have any idea of what DKIM is?

> But the world would be worse off, not better.

That's the whole point of this discussion. You seem to be arguing that the world would be better with non-repudiable email. But then I ask how many disputes have been resolved with DKIM and you have no idea. So basically your argument has zero basis in reality.

You're asking for every email user to have non-repudiation enforced unwillingly to them in every email they send so that someone maybe someday may solve some imaginary dispute with Amazon by using DKIM.

You do realize that email is older than DKIM? And that commerce existed before emails? You don't need DKIM to solve the issues you've pointed out.

Again: How many disputes like that have been resolved with DKIM?

You can dispute that without DKIM.

How many disputes like that have been resolved with DKIM?

You didn't answer it. In which scenario Amazon would deny sending an email and you would be protected by DKIM?

Then digitally sign it. Sign and scan it. Do not require signing every single email you send to protect 0,1% of them.

Why do you need Amazon to digitally sign a contract?

So maybe digitally sign the contracts instead of unwillingly sign every single email you send?

Sure. So why do we need DKIM to authenticate contracts?

I meant: authenticating a contract via email. I guess you sign and scan them?

Sure. But what authenticates the contract? Do you sign and scan them?

So... no need for DKIM

It's still a terrible idea...

We could catch a lot of criminals if we every OS had a backdoor that the police could access. So, are you in favor of that?