I would be curious also but would be happy with a
73% of the signatures were author signatures meaning the "d=" value in the
signature matched the domain found in the From:header field
and let the reader draw their own conclusions
On Oct 4, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
Thus begins working group last call on the DKIM implementation and
interoperability report, draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-02:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report
The working group last call will run through Friday, 22 October, 2010.
This implementation report will be used to advance the DKIM base spec
to Draft Standard. Everyone please review it, and post
comments/issues. Please also post here if you've reviewed it and think
it's ready to go.
I have only one comment. The removal of very significant data points
from this last revision:
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.
Originator signatures: 1.2 billion
Third-party signatures: 184 million
This is signification information.
Why was it removed? Why hide this significant fact?
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
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