> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304) > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:10 PM > To: Hector Santos; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Updated implementation report > > Outstanding job Murray. Is this sufficient to achieve the intended > goal?
I've asked our AD to comment on that very question. I'll let you know what he says (or he might post his review of it here). > 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. We can do both of those. What colour would you like it? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
