What is your point / the information you find relevant here to WGLC of the
bis project?
We do many times this volume in a single day and are happy to share top
line stats.
Seth
-mobile
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 18:08 Matthäus Wander <mail=
40wander.scie...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Here is an evaluation of 84k aggregate reports in the timespan of
> 2020-2024.
>
> 481 reporting organizations
> derived from 896 distinct <org_name> strings
> ---+---
> 44 use Organization Names ("Example")
> with min=1, median=1.0, mean=1.11, max=3 distinct names
> 344 use Organizational Domains only ("example.net")
> with min=1, median=1.0, mean=1.05, max=10 distinct domains
> 93 use Hostnames and Domains ("mx1.example.net")
> with min=1, median=2, mean=5.23, max=315 distinct hosts
> ---+---
> 364 report version
> 2 report version__other
> 0 report meta_error
> 450 report sp
> 340 report sp__empty
> 39 report fo__v1
> 0 report fo__v1empty
> 69 report override_reason
> 21 report envelope_to
> 354 report envelope_from__v1
> 119 report envelope_from__v1empty
> 18 report envelope_from__v1missing
> 3 report dkim_selector__empty
> 94 report dkim_selector__missing
> 18 report dkim_result__none
> 19 report dkim_human_result
> 17 report dkim_human_result__copy
> 357 report spf_scope__v1
> ---+---
> Human-comprehensible result:
> - 76% (364/481) of reporters announce the use of the RFC 7489
> <version>1.0</version> schema.
> - No one seems to use <error> below <report_metadata>.
> - 71% (340/481) report an empty <sp></sp> instead of the default value.
> - 11% (39/364) of 1.0 reporters include the <fo> element, although it's
> actually mandatory. Draft schema does not have <fo>.
>
> <identifiers>:
> - 4% (21/481) use <envelope_to>.
> - 97% (351/364) of 1.0 reporters use <envelope_from>. Draft schema does
> not have <envelope_from>.
> - 33% (119/364) have used an empty <envelope_from> (i.e., reported a
> bounce) at least once.
> - 5% (18/364) have omitted <envelope_from> at least once, even though
> it is mandatory in 1.0.
> - The remaining 62% either did not receive a bounce or do not report
> bounces.
>
> <dkim>:
> - 20% (94/481) have omitted the optional <selector> in a DKIM result at
> least once.
> - 4% (18/481) have reported a DKIM <result>none</result>, even though
> they could've instead omit the <dkim> element altogether.
> - 4% (19/481) have used the DKIM <human_result>, but only 2 used it for
> extra information that was not just a copy of <result>.
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
