ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Collecting statistics

2010-03-25 17:51:34
Maybe, or at least partly.  It depends on your reputation scheme’s secret sauce.

But reputation in particular is out of scope for this working group.

From: Franck Martin [mailto:franck(_at_)genius(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: IETF-DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Collecting statistics

May be stupid question: Would these stats help to build a reputation on the 
domain?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com>
To: "IETF-DKIM" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, 26 March, 2010 10:25:33 AM
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Collecting statistics


I’ve got as a task for the next major OpenDKIM release a reworking of our 
statistics collection component.  This is something that’s off by default; one 
must specifically enable it both at compile time and at run time.

What I’m considering is a change to the code so that it collects a larger set 
of interesting things instead of just pass/fail counts, which canonicalizations 
are in use, what signing algorithm is in use, whether or not “l=” is in use, 
and the date/time a domain was last seen.  Some of the data I’m looking at 
collecting include:

-          On failure, whether or not the “bh” matched (so you can tell whether 
it was a body change or a header change that broke it)

-          On failure, if “z=” was present, record the name of the header(s) 
that were changed

-          Use of g=, t= in keys

-          Use of x=, t=, z=, l= in signatures

-          If l= was used, how often extra data was present

-          Count of times t= was used and contained a future timestamp

-          Count of retrieved key records that contained a syntax error

-          Count of signatures referencing nonexistent keys

-          ADSP statistics

-          Count of third-party signatures

-          Count of messages containing multiple signatures

For those of you thinking about statistics regarding DKIM, have I missed any 
that might be useful to the working group?


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>