>By making the DKIM keys public, you are converting solid evidence of something that was said into something that was either really said, or someone else pretended that they said. Evidence was destroyed.
>Destroy: transitive verb: to put out of existence.
As the other commenter stated, nothing was destroyed. Nothing. The plausibility of a certain piece of evidence was called into question, but that's not the same as destroying evidence. At all. It just isn't. You're wrong.
For there to be a crime of "destroying evidence" there needs to be a criminal. If the keys are published, who is guilty of destroying evidence? Google? The email user? Please tell me who should be charged?
>No one is auto-disappearing messages.
End to end encrypted communications platforms Signal[0], WhatsApp[1] and Telegram[2] all offer disappearing messages. These end-to-end encrypted platforms are the de-facto replacement for insecure email.
So again, I will ask. How is publishing DKIM keys "destroying evidence" but this isn't?
>Are you just not learning what words mean?
Take a hint from the votes. It's you who is soundly losing the argument.
----
If you can't articulate (1) who is guilty of "destroying evidence" and (2) why that destruction of evidence is any different from disappearing messages then you have lost the argument.
Answer those two questions or concede that "destruction of evidence" has nothing to do with this and you've completely wasted your time (and looked like a total jerk while doing so).
-----
[0] https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007320771-Se... [1] https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/chats/about-disappearing-me... [2] https://mashable.com/2017/07/24/telegram-disappearing-messag...