On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote: > 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. >> > > 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 validates what I have always been felt is the high promise for > DKIM exclusive (1st party or passive 3rd party) operations. Policy is > inevitable to facilitate policy (domain expectation) fault detection.
Yet 55.8% of the keys were tagged as being in test mode. I also suspect that many implementations don't offer any alternative than 1st party. I believe this is true for IronPorts. It be interesting to see a MTA breakdown in respect to 1st and 3rd party signatures. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
