-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 8:12 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-01
Author vs. Third-Party: 73% of the signatures observed were author
signatures, meaning the "d=" value in the signature matched the
domain found in the From: header field. The remainder, therefore,
were third-party signatures.
I do believe the DKIM draft warns about having d= be related to other
headers in the message. Perhaps this stat could be restated as:
The spec simply states that DKIM doesn't require any binding at all. (Section
1.1)
d= relations: 73% of the signatures observed had a direct
correspondence to the From: header , meaning the "d=" value in the
signature matched the
domain found in the From: header field.
Since there is no binding in RFC4871, which is the focus of the implementation
report, it seems more correct to me to just leave that information out. It's
more of an ADSP statistic.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html