On Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:00:04 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Scott
Kitterman
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:36 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again
My experience is it varies a lot by domain. Some domains are phishing
targets and some aren't. If it's not a phishing target DKIM doesn't
matter much either way. If it is, then if they can manage to sign all
their outbound mail signed/not signed gets to be useful. So I don't
think looking at global status is a very useful basis for deciding the
question.
So you'd rather I run this on some signing domains that aren't obvious
phish targets? I can do that. If you have a few you think might be
interesting, send me the names; if not, I can see if I can come up with
some just based on the numbers.
And I can constrain it to a specific reporting site (e.g., my own) instead
of all reporters if you think that gives a more interesting view.
I was thinking the opposite. Look at phish targets that sign pretty reliably.
I'll contact you offlist with some ideas on which.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html