> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:41 AM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 2 Day Collection Stats > > > > 57 of them failed even in the presence of an "l=" tag. > > > > More work for Murray. Distribution of the l= values? Particularly l=0 > > Total signatures to date: 333764 > Signatures with no "l=": 319774 (95.8%) > Signatures with "l=0": 1120 (0.3%) > Signatures with other "l=" values: 12870 (3.9%)
And, anticipating the next question(s): Signatures with other "l=" values that were in turn larger than the message received: 10389 Subset of those that still passed: 9870 (95%) Subset of those that still passed and looked like list traffic: 5504 (53%) Based on that it looks like "l=" is pretty effective, but not very widely used. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
