On 5/6/11 8:43 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
+----------+--------------+
| count(*) | mailing_list |
+----------+--------------+
| 77246 | 0 |
| 78853 | 1 |
+----------+--------------+
That's just strange. Most of the l= signatures don't cover the whole
body, and half of those didn't go through a mailing list?
I suspect it's use of "l=" by a signer without regard to whether or not
the mail is heading to an MLM. For example, OpenDKIM's antecedent had
that as an option; only the evolution to OpenDKIM allowed you to be more
specific.
Except that doesn't explain why l= doesn't cover the entire body.
Signing or verifying bug? Clever spammer replaying signed mail and
getting away with it? Forwarders of some sort that add a footer but
otherwise don't look like mailing lists?
or just "authoring MLM's" (see par. 4.2 of
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-08.txt) which
probably use software that incorporates some (minimalistic) type of MLM
which adds one of the headers, listed by Murray.
I notice I regularly get mail from marketing departments of my car
dealer, smart phone provider, from Adobe, etc. that carry a
'List-Unsubscribe' header and some of them carry a Precedence header. I
wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of this type of messages is
greater than the percentage of the 'classic' re-sending MLM type of
messages.
Back to the topic of this thread: I don't think we can draw any
conclusions from these statistics in relation to the description of l=
in rfc4871bis. The current description in rfc4871bis works for me.
/rolf
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html