DKIM makes no assertions about the timestamp. It can be anything you want, just as in any other email.

The signature can confirm parts of the email were not edited after it was signed, not that any of the contents were ever true or correct.

What if you send the email from a reputable managed email service? That way, they're responsible for managing the keys, and can probably be trusted not to sign anything fraudulently.

Cheaper than paying for a digital signing service, but I imagine it wouldn't hold up as well in court.

Poor man's copyright is unfortunately quite tenuous and usually unenforceable.

At my start-up we've built an analogous system which instead uses a public blockchain for notarization (as dirty as that word has become). https://assembl.net or https://app.assembl.net if you'd like to try timestamping right away.

Non-repudiation here is useful, but the timestamping is the more important piece.

How is it unenforceable if DKIM offers cryptographic non-repudiation practically similar to embedding* the hash of the item§ in a public blockchain?

* This is an assumption

§ I understand that you may be embedding Merkle roots to keep costs low.

From the wiki article YOU quoted (USA specific)

> there is an absence of cases actually giving any value to the poor man's copyright.

I would refer you to https://cryptoadventure.org/blockchain-in-courts-a-look-into....

Poor man's copyright without cryptographic proof or an immutable time boundary is pretty much worthless.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be unenforceable. It simply means it hasn't passed the test of a court. However, isn't the same, from my limited research and knowledge, true for blockchain-based notarization?

https://cryptoadventure.org/blockchain-in-courts-a-look-into... blockchain timestamping is pretty well tested.

Edit: I would really appreciate it if the downvoters would at least attempt to have a discussion. The dogpiling tactic seems to be rather thoughtless.

DKIM does not offer cryptographic proof-of-existence or proof-of-time, which a blockchain does. That's the only functional difference, but crucial for copyright law.

OT, but if you're going to use a miss-spelled word, by not get one with an available .com?

Eh, fair question. Assembl is a pretty sought after name which we have the trademark on. I came up with the name after thinking it was necessary to "assemble" teams of scientists for collaborative research. I liked the name "Assembl" as it's the root for "assemble", "assembling", "assembly", etc.

- https://assembl.org and

- https://assembl.co

are both infringers, but we haven't decided to go after them. The owner of https://assembl.com cannot be compelled to sell it, but can't sell it to anyone but us. For now, the focus is mainly on providing value to our userbase, as we grow these challenges are surmountable.

Sounds like a managed issue. Good luck. FWIW, I like the name.