J D Falk wrote:
our purposes. It probably isn't sufficient for all purposes.
While I can't name names without potentially violating our agreements with
some of these partners, I can safely state that there are more sites
authenticating (and using this header) than appear to be represented
on this
list. Most of seem are unlikely to implement any drastic header format
change, because the old format is sufficient for their needs.
That pretty much coincides with the experiment that I was running while
still at Cisco. It surprised me that authenticating sites outnumbered
signers,
that the percentages were as high as they seemed, and the nice adoption
trend line. Maybe you can get Jim or Pat to care and feed the experiment
as it's an interesting look into the who's and how many's.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html