> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- > boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:23 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Updated implementation report > > Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I've posted a new issue of the DKIM implementation report. The most > interesting changes are the inclusion of a day of sample data from AOL and > a revision of the data summary reported by the OpenDKIM stats project > using the updated schema, which allows a few interesting new observations. > >
Outstanding job Murray. Is this sufficient to achieve the intended goal? > > Thanks for the report. > > I believe the most outstanding data point here is the extremely high > original signing of mail. AOL's 1.2 out of 1.4 billion or 86% > signatures were 1st party and your own statistics showed 73% were 1st > party. > This isn't particularly surprising to me. I've always believed there is a significantly higher value for 1st party signing compared to 3rd party. The value proposition has always seemed to be much more compelling to me. It would be interesting if the data could be sliced and diced a little differently. For example, it would be interesting to look at percentage based on volume compared to percentage based on number of domains. In other words, are a small number of large domains skewing the reported numbers. It would also be interesting to look at breakout percentage of domains signing based on number of emails received from that domain. So, arbitrarily segment the set into quintiles based on number of mails received for that domain and then look at signing practices within the quintile. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html