Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:38:20 -0500

Delineate original responsibility of who wrote the message (Author) from
a more responsible party who allowed the author to access the outside
world (Originator) vs a diminished responsibility of who passes the
message along, (Operator)

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:17 AM
To: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta)
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator

[email-masked] wrote:
> Hmmm,
> I would like author: responsible for the message content
> 	 Originator: MTA that first handles the author's message
> 	   Operator: Subsequent MTA's handling before final delivery

why?

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 07:50:15 -0800

> message along, (Operator)

"more responsible".  I don't understand.

I do understand the interest in stopping the abuse at its source network. But 
that makes the entity of interest a particular Operator, rather than somehow 
being fundamentally different that all other Operators.

That is (using the original terminology I proposed) the Originator's Operator 
carries some extra leverage, presuming posting authentication.

However, any Operator in the sequence could enforce limitations.

d/

ps. To the extent that folks decide we do need a special term for the first 
Operator, the word Originator will be confusing, given a) it's history, and b) 
it's likely intuitive meaning to folks.  If you ask a random person who the 
Originator of a message is, I suspect they will refer to the author.

-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Jeff Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:27:40 -0500

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 07:50:15AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Operator, the word Originator will be confusing, given a) it's history, and 
> b) it's likely intuitive meaning to folks.  If you ask a random person who 
> the Originator of a message is, I suspect they will refer to the author.

That may be, but I'm with Bill on this one. As an ESP, the client is
the author, we are just the publishers. However, if we just talking
mail streams and not content, then I like your original model of
Originator and Operator.

-- 
:: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | [email-masked]
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 
:: www.e-dialog.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Jeff Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:49:52 -0500

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:27:40AM -0500, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> However, if we just talking mail streams and not content, then I like
> your original model of Originator and Operator.

Let me ammend that. I just re-read your definition of Originator and
that doesn't talk about mail streams. I find it very easy to understand
things when talking about books. An author creates a book. A publisher
introduces the book to the world in a presentable format. A Bookstore
make the book available to the public. Using Bill's suggestion:

email		books
author		author
originator	publisher
operator	bookstore

my 2 cents.

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:51:29 -0800

On Mar 10, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:

>> ps. To the extent that folks decide we do need a special term for  
>> the first Operator, the word Originator will be confusing, given  
>> a) it's history, and b) it's likely intuitive meaning to folks.   
>> If you ask a random person who the Originator of a message is, I  
>> suspect they will refer to the author.
>
> That may be, but I'm with Bill on this one. As an ESP, the client  
> is the author, we are just the publishers. However, if we just  
> talking mail streams and not content, then I like your original  
> model of Originator and Operator.

In the draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-otis-dkim-options-00.txt

roles HELO : MSA/Mediator/MDA

This draft attempted to define roles for signatures.  In the case of  
the MDA signing role, this could be used instead of a results header  
which is prone to simple exploits.  The client IP address or a  
verified HELO can be held accountable for both the message envelope  
and the message.  The signer can only be held accountable for the  
portion of the message signed.  Role assignments based upon SPF or  
Sender-ID must be prohibited due to the possible inordinate  
amplification (by orders of magnitude) of UDP traffic.

-Doug

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:08:02 -0800

Hmmm...

 >... I find it very easy to understand

I noted your earlier use of 'publisher' and it bothered me quite a bit.

However  I am warming to the model you describe.

1. It is an extremely well-established model.

2. It pertains to salient responsibilities in an information transfer sequence.

(Given that multiple operators can be in a sequence, I'd suggest 'distributor' 
rather than 'bookstore'.)

It scares me quite a bit to have my email operator be vested with apparent 
responsibility for the content of my email, but, alas, I guess that really is 
what the anti-abuse work is about.

What do other folks think?

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:32:27 -0800

On Mar 10, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> (Given that multiple operators can be in a sequence, I'd suggest  
> 'distributor' rather than 'bookstore'.)
>
> It scares me quite a bit to have my email operator be vested with  
> apparent responsibility for the content of my email, but, alas, I  
> guess that really is what the anti-abuse work is about.
>

DKIM is not about defining the author of the message and would  
conflict with the charter.  Only when the signing-domain coincides  
with that of the email-address, are _assumptions_ possible.   
Assignment of accountability does not scale down to the user, and  
DKIM itself offers no protection beyond the domain.  Rather than  
seeing this as a trail that starts with the author, these roles are  
better broken down into MTA functions that have already been  
established,  MSA, Mediator, MDA.

-Doug

---

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:35:48 -0500

If this is an exercise for some presentation you are making, I would pay
more attention to it if you were on par with current understanding and
terminologies as it applies to broader mail content methods and within
current US laws as a based model [1]:

    Content Provider
    Content Publisher

Since 1986, per US EPCA, the publisher was 100% responsible for the
integrity of the content made by the provider.

Since 2000, the publisher is still responsible but he is no longer liable
for the original integrity of the content. He has more editorial power much
like a hard paper editor.

This has direct effect on the original common Online Hosting Definitions:

    AUTHOR
    OPERATOR

And an indirect effect with transport systems, if any, per RFC definition:

    ORIGINATOR
    SENDER

There you go, all three spectrums.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com

[1] US laws is what we understand here. Therefore go with it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jeff Macdonald" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator

> (Given that multiple operators can be in a sequence, I'd suggest
'distributor'

---

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:44:09 -0500

This is all depends on the binding of the headers.

If the FROM: field is bounded to the signature, than it is 100% indeed tied
to the author of the message.

If the FROM: field is not bound to the signature, then it is more like you
say.

---

From: "Daniel Dreymann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:58:31 -0800

Not to add too much confusion, let us not forget that CAN SPAM uses the term
"sender" solely for what is referred below as "author".

ESPs sometime consider themselves "senders" while their clients on behalf of
whom they send are "mailers".

>From CAN-SPAM:

(16) SENDER.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), the term ‘‘sender’’, when used with respect to a
commercial electronic mail message, means a person who
initiates such a message and whose product, service, or
Internet web site is advertised or promoted by the message.
(B) SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS OR DIVISIONS.—If an
entity operates through separate lines of business or divisions
and holds itself out to the recipient throughout the
message as that particular line of business or division
rather than as the entity of which such line of business
or division is a part, then the line of business or the
division shall be treated as the sender of such message
for purposes of this Act. 

--
Daniel T. Dreymann
Co-Founder & SVP Product, Engineering & Operations
Goodmail Systems, Inc.
Mobile: 650.823.4268    [email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 09:08
To: Jeff Macdonald
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator

Hmmm...

2. It pertains to salient responsibilities in an information transfer
sequence.

It scares me quite a bit to have my email operator be vested with apparent 
responsibility for the content of my email, but, alas, I guess that really
is 
what the anti-abuse work is about.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:48:15 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Dreymann" <[email-masked]>

> Not to add too much confusion, let us not forget that CAN SPAM
> uses the term "sender" solely for what is referred below as "author".

Good point. But I believe CAN-SPAM is concern about who "initiated" [1] or
the responsible person who has put a message in motion, into play.  In
general, that would be the "Sender" regardless of he actually wrote it or
not.  Given the technology we have the past 20 years, this is either the RFC
x821 Return Path: or the RFC x822 From: address, thus this is one reason
many feel CAN-SPAM has failed us.  I don't agree with that sentiment, but it
is a legitimate concern.  In this regard, SENDER is more of a top level
"user" reference of who as actually wrote and/or put the message into play
and has taken responsibility for that message.

> whom they send are "mailers".

In my decades of writing, producting and marketing mail/data distribution
software, we have never used the term "MAILER" to refer to the CLIENT/AUTHOR
of the message if that the connotation you are referring too.  A MAILER is
"SOFTWARE" and more associated with the the transport/frontend system.

[1] From CAN-SPAM:

(16) SENDER.-
(A) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), the term ''sender'', when used with respect to a
commercial electronic mail message, means a person who
initiates such a message and whose product, service, or
Internet web site is advertised or promoted by the message.
(B) SEPARATE LINES OF BUSINESS OR DIVISIONS.-If an
entity operates through separate lines of business or divisions
and holds itself out to the recipient throughout the
message as that particular line of business or division
rather than as the entity of which such line of business
or division is a part, then the line of business or the
division shall be treated as the sender of such message
for purposes of this Act.

---

From: "J.D. Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:14:59 -0800

>> operator	bookstore
  [ . . . ]
> what the anti-abuse work is about.

In practice, the originator applies the signature (thereby taking 
responsibility) on behalf of the author...so, it makes sense to me.

> What do other folks think?

I doubt we'll find anything better -- and I especially like how easy 
it'll be to explain these terms to newcomers.

-- 
J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager
Yahoo! Communications Platform Team
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 15:15:02 -0800

> "sender" solely for what is referred below as "author".

There are several problems with this:

1. Can-Spam is but one country's law and choice of terminology.

2. Their particular vocabulary has not seemed to have much effect on anyone 
else's choices.

3. The problem with that particular word's ambiguity in general, anti-spam 
discussions, is not small.  We really do need a tiny number of easily remembered 
and used terms that make important distinctions.

#3 is the main issue, as I see it.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:18:55 -0800

On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:15 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 2. Their particular vocabulary has not seemed to have much effect  
> on anyone else's choices.
>
> 3. The problem with that particular word's ambiguity in general,  
> anti-spam discussions, is not small.  We really do need a tiny  
> number of easily remembered and used terms that make important  
> distinctions.
>

Using Nicks list

--- the-entity-responsible-for-creating-the-content-of-a-message

    User identification is out of scope for DKIM as it falls into the  
realm of S/MIME and OpenPGP.  Although there might be coincident  
domains in the signature and email-address found in a header field  
commonly related to a domain of origin, there is little to confirm  
the user has been properly identified by the signing-domain and the  
recipient has properly recognized the user.  Accountability for user  
verification remains with the signing-domain.  As such, the signing- 
domain, and not the user must be held accountable.  Problems are  
resolved at the domain and not at the user, so there is little value  
describing the roles of individuals.  Consider this a problem of what  
email delivery function can be associated with what domain.  There is  
greater value discarding the concepts of author/provender, sender/ 
provider, or book/publisher.  There is also already some IPR related  
to this distinction called the PRA.  There seems to be little value  
reinventing this wheel.

--- the-entity-responsible-for-emanating-a-message

   This operation might be done by the MSA or a Mediator (such as a  
list server) where either role should be identifiable.

--- the-entity-responsible-for-getting-a-message-to-a-recipient.

   This operation is done by the MDA.

-Doug

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:36:51 -0500

Douglas Otis said
> DKIM is not about defining the author of the message and would conflict 
> with the charter.

Regardless of what DKIM does or doesn't have to say about the author of 
a message, it's useful to have consistent and well defined terminology. 
  It might be a good idea to have an informational RFC that defines all 
these terms (and I think Keith Moore's tried to do something like that).

I like this, for the purpose of DKIM:
    "author" -- the entity who wrote the text
    "originator" -- the entity who sent the message
    "originating domain" -- the domain of the originator
    "signing domain" -- a domain that has signed the message
    "MTA" -- widely used term; does "operator" really say something else?
    "verifying domain" -- a somain that verifies the message
    "signer" -- an MTA/operator that has signed the message
    "verifier" -- an MTA/operator that verifies the message
    "recipient" -- a final recipient of the message
    "recipient's domain" -- a recipient's domain

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology  ([email-masked])
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 05:47:13 -0800 (PST)

Some of those involved in this debate are missing that in many cases
email message may have multiple content parts are they may not
necessarily be from the same author or introduced into transport by the 
same party. The terms author and originator should really be content
specific and not email message specific (at least in the way email
is currently used) and that is often not properly understood.

At some point before I have published short draft that tried to touch
on this issue, you can find its copy at
  http://www.elan.net/~william/emailsecurity/draft-leibzon-content-author-originator-00.html

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:09:37 -0800

Folks,

>> make the book available to the public. Using Bill's suggestion:

Barry points out that this vocabulary discussion is still pending.

I'd like to solicit working group consensus on the following terminology:

For the purposes of discussing accountability, email creation, distribution, and 
consumption can be discussed in the terms used for creation, distribution and 
consumption of books and the like.

Therefore...

Author:

      Responsible for creating the message content.

      To the extent that that content draws from other authors, this particular 
author is responsible for assembling their content and for creating a particular 
message.  (Hence, this distinguishes between "the message in its entirety" 
versus parts of the message body.)

Publisher:

      Responsible for some degree of author and/or content "approval" and for 
injecting the content into the Internet Mail service.

Distributor:

      Responsible for moving the message from the publisher to Retailer (Reader?)

Retailer:

      Responsible for delivering the message to the Reader.

Very broadly, we can choose do aggregate these into Users and Operators.  Users 
are the producers and consumers of content.  Operators do the handling, to 
connect Users.

Those agreeing with this are request to do a +1, or somesuch.  Of course, those 
disagree are requested to say so, but in particular to propose alternative 
vocabulary and/or description.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:23:07 -0800

>      Responsible for some degree of author and/or content "approval" and 
>      for injecting the content into the Internet Mail service.
> Distributor:
...
> Very broadly, we can choose do aggregate these into Users and Operators.
> Users are the producers and consumers of content.  Operators do the handling,
> to connect Users.

I should have provided a table that links the two sets of terms.

So:

   User:
      Author
      Reader

   Operator:
      Publisher
      Distributor
      Retailer

-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:28:00 -0800 (PST)

> I should have provided a table that links the two sets of terms.

User can also take role of a publisher (I mean separate user from author), 
that is what Sender field is for actually. In many scenarios such user
(i.e. like secretary) would not be someebody I'd describe as operator.

---

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:43:03 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator

> I should have provided a table that links the two sets of terms.

+0.90

This is much better Dave.

But I'm not use to the term "Retailer."  If you can find another term...

Also, since you are using the term "Publisher" for the Operator group, I
would suggest you throw in the term "Provider" in the User group.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:25:45 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 12:09 16-03-2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
>For the purposes of discussing accountability, email creation, 
>distribution, and consumption can be discussed in the terms used for 
>creation, distribution and consumption of books and the like.
>
>Therefore...
>
>
>Author:
>

As this discussion is about accountability, I suggest removing the 
"responsible" part from that line.  The author creates the message content.

>Publisher:
>
>      Responsible for some degree of author and/or content 
> "approval" and for injecting the content into the Internet Mail service.

As we move down the distribution chain, we find that the publisher 
may be identified as the responsible party as he/she can, to some 
degree, do content "approval" and identify the author.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jeff Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:26:46 -0500

> But I'm not use to the term "Retailer."  If you can find another term...

+1 when you find another term for Retailer.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:27:58 -0800

Folks,

> +1 when you find another term for Retailer.

We need suggestions.  I have no idea what term will work, here.

On reflecting about the sequence of discussion, I do believe we need a term for 
this role, because the agency that is performing in that job (handing the 
message to the recipient) is clearly felt to have substantial control and 
responsibility.

So we need to have a term that refers to them, within this publishing model we 
are using.

Somehow, "bookseller" does not seem likely to work well..

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:03:50 -0800

On Mar 17, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> SM wrote:
> I am not understanding your concern.  I added the word  
> "responsible" to each of the defintions, in order to make explicit  
> that responsibility is what we are focused on.
>
> Are you distinguishing accountability from responsibility?  If so,  
> why and how?
>
> Are you viewing the word 'responsible' as redundant, since the  
> entire context is about it?  If so, my feeling is that we need to  
> repetition, since there is already some history of missing this focus.
>
> If your concern is something else, what is it?

I seem to hold a different view with respect to accountability and  
responsibility.

A parent is held accountable for the actions of their children.  This  
seems to be a good term as parents may be required to pay for damages.

The child is ultimately responsible for the actions, but they are  
indirectly held accountable through their parents.

A ESP is held accountable for the actions of their customers.  The  
customers may indeed be responsible for the content of their  
messages, but the ESP is nevertheless held accountable.  As with  
children, it is not feasible to disperse accountability to those that  
have no resources and seldom carry ID.

-Doug

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:32:25 -0800

> "responsible" part from that line.  The author creates the message content.

I am not understanding your concern.  I added the word "responsible" to each of 
the defintions, in order to make explicit that responsibility is what we are 
focused on.

Are you distinguishing accountability from responsibility?  If so, why and how?

Are you viewing the word 'responsible' as redundant, since the entire context is 
about it?  If so, my feeling is that we need to repetition, since there is 
already some history of missing this focus.

>> Publisher:
>>
>>      Responsible for some degree of author and/or content "approval" 
>> and for injecting the content into the Internet Mail service.
> 
> As we move down the distribution chain, we find that the publisher may 
> be identified as the responsible party as he/she can, to some degree, do 
> content "approval" and identify the author.

Again, I am not understand your point.  You seem to be agreeing with the 
definition, but I suspect you are intending to suggest a change or to raise a 
concern.  Please clarify.

Thanks.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:51:16 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 09:32 17-03-2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
>I am not understanding your concern.  I added the word "responsible" 
>to each of the defintions, in order to make explicit that 
>responsibility is what we are focused on.

I suggested removing the word "responsible" as from the point of view 
of the distributor or retailer, it may not always be clear who the author is.

>Are you distinguishing accountability from responsibility?  If so, 

No, I am not going to such lengths.

>repetition, since there is already some history of missing this focus.

No, I do not view the word "responsible" as redundant.  The 
repetition stresses who is responsible for what.

>If your concern is something else, what is it?

My concern is that the determination of authorship is not clear-cut 
when we talk about mail.

>Again, I am not understand your point.  You seem to be agreeing with 
>the definition, but I suspect you are intending to suggest a change 
>or to raise a concern.  Please clarify.

I agree with your definition from Publisher downwards.  My point in 
regards to the author  definition is that if we cannot determine the 
identity, then we cannot establish responsibility.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:20:19 -0800

SM wrote:
> I suggested removing the word "responsible" as from the point of view of 
> the distributor or retailer, it may not always be clear who the author is.

The point of DKIM is to focus on accurate and reliable 
accountability/responsibility.  So, the definition of a DKIM signture is simply 
that the signer takes responsibility (whatever that means.)

In the explanations for each label, the only responsibility each is given is for 
doing their own, particular actions.

Hence, the author is responsible for creating the content. That responsibility 
does not depend upon whether we can identify them, although it certainly has an 
effect on their accountability...

> No, I do not view the word "responsible" as redundant.  The repetition 
> stresses who is responsible for what.
> 
> My concern is that the determination of authorship is not clear-cut when 
> we talk about mail.

OK.  Does my above discussion clarify that the language is not meant 'author 
responsibility' does not require knowing know who the author is?

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:06:40 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 16:20 17-03-2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
>accountability/responsibility.  So, the definition of a DKIM 
>signture is simply that the signer takes responsibility (whatever that means.)

That was my focus, hence my earlier comments.

>In the explanations for each label, the only responsibility each is 
>given is for doing their own, particular actions.
>
>Hence, the author is responsible for creating the content. That 
>responsibility does not depend upon whether we can identify them, 
>although it certainly has an effect on their accountability...

>OK.  Does my above discussion clarify that the language is not meant 
>'author responsibility' does not require knowing know who the author is?

Yes, it clarifies it.

Regards,
-sm