> -----Original Message----- > From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com] > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:35 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] l= statistics was 23 again (sorry John) was Output > > > http://www.opendkim.org/stats/report.html#l_tag > > > > You can see the count that have "l=" smaller than the final message > > size as well as the "l=0" ones, and how many of those passed or failed. > > > > That's out of 155972 signatures that used "l=", and 4.36M total > > signatures observed, in just over eight months of data. > > Hmmn. If my arithmetic is right, about 95% of l= signatures didn't cover > the whole body, and only a few of those were l=0. Your users must > subscribe to different mailing lists than I do.
Might not be list traffic. But I have data for that too. Count of signatures with "l=" that did or didn't appear to pass through an MLM: +----------+--------------+ | count(*) | mailing_list | +----------+--------------+ | 77246 | 0 | | 78853 | 1 | +----------+--------------+ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
