I would be curious also but would be happy with a 73% of the signatures were author signatures meaning the "d=" value in the signature matched the domain found in the From:header field
and let the reader draw their own conclusions On Oct 4, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > Barry Leiba wrote: >> Thus begins working group last call on the DKIM implementation and >> interoperability report, draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-02: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report >> The working group last call will run through Friday, 22 October, 2010. >> >> This implementation report will be used to advance the DKIM base spec >> to Draft Standard. Everyone please review it, and post >> comments/issues. Please also post here if you've reviewed it and think >> it's ready to go. > > > I have only one comment. The removal of very significant data points > from this last revision: > > Author vs. Third-Party: 73% of the signatures observed were author > signatures, meaning the "d=" value in the signature matched the > domain found in the From: header field. The remainder, therefore, > were third-party signatures. > > Originator signatures: 1.2 billion > Third-party signatures: 184 million > > This is signification information. > > Why was it removed? Why hide this significant fact? > > > -- > HLS > > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
