-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of MH Michael
Hammer (5304)
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:10 PM
To: Hector Santos; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Updated implementation report
Outstanding job Murray. Is this sufficient to achieve the intended
goal?
I've asked our AD to comment on that very question. I'll let you know what he
says (or he might post his review of it here).
It would be interesting if the data could be sliced and diced a little
differently.
For example, it would be interesting to look at percentage based on
volume compared to percentage based on number of domains. In other
words, are a small number of large domains skewing the reported
numbers.
It would also be interesting to look at breakout percentage of domains
signing based on number of emails received from that domain. So,
arbitrarily segment the set into quintiles based on number of mails
received for that domain and then look at signing practices within the
quintile.
We can do both of those. What colour would you like it?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html