I trust in DKIM signatures. Any statement by an intelligence service ever is caked in multiple layers of conflicting motivations from expanding their budget, pleasing their lax overseers, deflecting incompetence to confusing adversaries.
And these are just the generic reasons. In this particular case, the first obvious question is why NSA et al. would ever state their certainty in a Russian attack publicly. There are no good outcomes. Either they are right and the Russians blow up the bridges as they retreat or they are wrong and the Russians know they are incompetent.
How would DKIM signatures show who stole the e-mails?
>
I trust in DKIM signatures. Any statement by an intelligence service ever is caked in multiple layers of conflicting motivations from expanding their budget, pleasing their lax overseers, deflecting incompetence to confusing adversaries.
That is some of the motivations, the negative ones, but you fail to list all the reasons they wouldn't want to lie to make your argument sound stronger.
I understand being skeptical of an intelligence service, but all intelligence services? Well, you'd have to have a pretty strong reason to doubt.
