-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Murray S.
Kucherawy
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:41 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 2 Day Collection Stats
57 of them failed even in the presence of an "l=" tag.
More work for Murray. Distribution of the l= values? Particularly l=0
Total signatures to date: 333764
Signatures with no "l=": 319774 (95.8%)
Signatures with "l=0": 1120 (0.3%)
Signatures with other "l=" values: 12870 (3.9%)
And, anticipating the next question(s):
Signatures with other "l=" values that were in turn larger than the message
received: 10389
Subset of those that still passed: 9870 (95%)
Subset of those that still passed and looked like list traffic: 5504 (53%)
Based on that it looks like "l=" is pretty effective, but not very widely used.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html