-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:35 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was Output
http://www.opendkim.org/stats/report.html#l_tag
You can see the count that have "l=" smaller than the final message
size as well as the "l=0" ones, and how many of those passed or failed.
That's out of 155972 signatures that used "l=", and 4.36M total
signatures observed, in just over eight months of data.
Hmmn. If my arithmetic is right, about 95% of l= signatures didn't cover
the whole body, and only a few of those were l=0. Your users must
subscribe to different mailing lists than I do.
Might not be list traffic. But I have data for that too. Count of signatures
with "l=" that did or didn't appear to pass through an MLM:
+----------+--------------+
| count(*) | mailing_list |
+----------+--------------+
| 77246 | 0 |
| 78853 | 1 |
+----------+--------------+
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html