I looked at ~3.5 million domain names and here's some of what I found. This data might be useful to the discussion. As for me, I'm lurking and learning..
Anyway, I looked at ~3.5 million domain names and here's some of what I found: FTSE DMARC Adoption DMARC Policy 10/18/2019 No record 56% none 34% quarantine 1% reject 9% F500 DMARC Adoption DMARC Policy 10/18/2019 no record 49% none 37% quarantine 4% reject 9% ASX DMARC Adoption DMARC Policy 10/18/2019 no record 59% none 33% quarantine 1% reject 7% On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:57 PM Neil Anuskiewicz <n...@marmot-tech.com> wrote: > I looked at ~3.5 million domain names and here's some of what I found. > This wasn't a random sample but perhaps this data will be useful in this > discussion: > > FTSE DMARC Adoption > > Snapshot (10/18) > No record 56% > none 34% > quarantine 1% > reject 9% > F500 DMARC Adoption > > Snapshot (10/18) > no record 49% > none 37% > quarantine 4% > reject 9% > > ASX DMARC Adoption > > Snapshot (10/18) > no record 59% > none 33% > quarantine 1% > reject 7% > > Thanks. > > Neil > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:02 PM Luis E. Muñoz <dmarc-ietf.org= > 40lem.cl...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> On 30 Jul 2020, at 15:52, Jim Fenton wrote: >> >> There's an underlying assumption here that I don't agree with: that >> DMARC adoption equates to the publication of a p=reject DMARC policy, >> and that everyone (or at least all Fortune 500 companies) should be >> doing that. p=reject should only be used when the usage patterns of the >> domain support that policy. I'm more inclined to say that 85% of Fortune >> 500 companies are savvy enough not to publish a policy that doesn't fit >> their usage patterns. >> >> I am currently observing ~215.5 million domain names. Out of those, ~64 >> million have a seemingly *valid* SPF record and ~113 million with at >> least one MX record. >> >> This is a current breakdown of the (valid) DMARC records I am observing >> over the general domain population above. This amounts to an adoption rate >> of ~1.7%. >> p count >> none 2715614 >> quarantine 238584 >> reject 726045 >> >> It is interesting that roughly half of those are not taking advantage of >> the reporting. Here are the counts for those with neither rua= nor ruf= >> in the DMARC records: >> p count >> none 1092990 >> quarantine 107767 >> reject 307614 >> >> I do not have a definitive list of Fortune 500 domain names, but I >> compile a rolling list of domain names with most traffic using multiple >> sources, which currently holds ~1.8 million unique domain names. >> >> The breakdown of DMARC records from that high-traffic population is shown >> below, and it amounts to about 6.3%. >> p count >> none 79367 >> quarantine 18094 >> reject 15875 >> >> For completeness, here is the same report, counting only those that have >> neither rua= nor ruf= in the DMARC record. The ratio of *silent* >> p=quarantine and p=reject seems around half as in the case of the >> general population. >> p count >> none 32561 >> quarantine 4534 >> reject 2760 >> >> It would seem that those high-traffic domains are ~5x more likely to >> adopt DMARC. To me, these numbers speaks of thoughtful and deliberate >> deployment that outpaces the general domain name registrations. >> >> That said, I cannot claim whether the list of high-traffic domains is >> actually a good proxy for the domain portfolio of the Fortune 500 companies. >> >> Best regards >> >> -lem >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
