> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:36 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again > > My experience is it varies a lot by domain. Some domains are phishing targets > and some aren't. If it's not a phishing target DKIM doesn't matter much > either way. If it is, then if they can manage to sign all their outbound mail > signed/not signed gets to be useful. So I don't think looking at global > status is a very useful basis for deciding the question.
So you'd rather I run this on some signing domains that aren't obvious phish targets? I can do that. If you have a few you think might be interesting, send me the names; if not, I can see if I can come up with some just based on the numbers. And I can constrain it to a specific reporting site (e.g., my own) instead of all reporters if you think that gives a more interesting view. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
