At M3AAWG a couple of years ago, a VLMB said that 60% of the DKIM errors they saw were obvious human error in the publishing of keys.
This is why I’ve been pushing (through M3AAWG, and hopefully eventually via the appropriate working groups here) the need to automate publishing of DKIM keys. They’re public after all, and a human (and generally, multiple humans) shouldn’t need to be in the critical path of getting a key from a sending system UI and then getting it published properly in DNS. My main point on this whole thread is there’s a lot of theory, but as Tevo’s data shows, the reality of these deployments and their challenges is far trickier. I’m still working with Todd to bring our own data on SPF to the working group. Seth, as an individual On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 11:10 Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:34 PM Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote: > >> DKIM failures >> ================================================================ >> 36.34% 26619 invalid DKIM record >> > > This is staggering. Can you characterize what the most common > malformations are? > > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > -- *Seth Blank * | Chief Technology Officer *e:* s...@valimail.com *p:* This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
