Counter-example: I've used DKIM as evidence in court.

Counter-example example: I've been an expert witness in court to prove an email was a forgery; using DKIM.

It'd be funny if we were working together and just telling the same story behind our aliases.

My case was a family court dispute where one parent forged an email from the other parent about the child's care. It was a pretty wild case. After that, I was pretty convinced some people are just evil.

Yea, stuff with kids involved sometimes makes it SUPER unambiguous. Some people are very clearly willing to do anything to anyone, and are doing so as much as possible.

Most people are not aware of what it means to be sociopath/psychopath/Anti-social personality disorder... Or how common it is in the population (a few percentage points seems reasonably accepted) - Why is this information not made general knowledge?

I would argue it should be taught in schools.

It's a basic life skill, to be aware of what it means and how common it is. How do you function in society being oblivious of these facts? Basically by perennially becoming a victim to these, or by becoming bitter.

Just knowing about it is half the battle.

I would also add other dark personality types with potential to cause you real harm to the list - BPD and NPD.

School yourself, save yourself a whole lot of bad surprises. Over a lifetime being aware of the existence of these means you are on the lookout for warning signs, and you learn to get better at picking up on warning signs faster.

That would be a counter-counterexample, wouldn't it?

The stacking of either term is unnecessary, because all counter-examples are also examples, thus:

* an example supporting the counter-example is simply another counter-example, and

* an example contradicting the counter-example is, by definition, also another counter-example.

Corollary: all examples that can be opposed or contradicted by counter-examples are themselves also counter-examples.

Nah, it supports the counter-example, so it's a counter-example example.

I'd say it refutes the counter-example. The court doesn't care about DKIM, they care about witness testimony.

DKIM might have convinced the witness sometimes though.

Courts typically do not care as much about what an expert witness thinks, as rather why they think it - and whether their reasons hold up enough that the conclusions they support should be accepted.

That is not quite correct. A court is undoubtedly interested in what an expert witness has to say.

It is the lawyers appearing before the court that may attempt to play the person not the ball, by variously undermining or bolstering their standing as an expert at all.

Which is why you say "No". Then when they try to prove that you did in fact send it, this comes up.

Well, if you did send it then you just perjured yourself, so you better hope you don't get caught :)

You'd be lying to the court either way if you did send it and meant to conceal it.

The same is true for breaking into a building. An expensive lock won't protect you against a determined attacker.