Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics
--On 4 October 2010 23:15:05 -0400 Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net wrote: Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: The term third-party was removed because DKIM itself doesn't say anything about a binding between d= and anything else in the message. That concept is first presented in ADSP. Since the implementation report is only about DKIM itself, not ADSP, discussing author vs. third party is actually irrelevant. -1 It is extremely relevant. The data is there. The numbers can be calculated from the sample size (~500k) and the proportions. They're nowhere near the numbers (Originator signatures: 1.2 billion Third-party signatures: 184 million) that you quoted in another email, which also don't match the proportions that you quoted. Where did 1.2 billion come from? Third party is somewhat of a leap from the domains don't match. For example, if the from header is in the domain example.com and we see d=foo.example.com, is that really a third party signature? Perhaps some clarity of whether subdomains were permitted to match would be useful.* Oh, and are you thinking this is about implementation of ADSP? I think it's supposed to be about implementation of DKIM, so that DKIM can be progressed. Please don't let a misunderstanding hold that process up. Its an implementation data report about observed operations and consistent per chapter itemized goals: 2. Collect data on the deployment, interoperability, and effectiveness of the base DKIM protocol, with consideration toward updating the working group's informational documents. 3. Collect data on the deployment, interoperability, and effectiveness of the Author Domain Signing Practices protocol (RFC 5617), and determine if/when it's ready to advance on the standards track. Update it at Proposed Standard, advance it to Draft Standard, deprecate it, or determine another disposition, as appropriate. 4. Taking into account the data collected in (2) and (3), update the overview and deployment/operations documents. These are considered living documents, and should be updated periodically, as we have more real-world experience. The empirical data is on par with #2, #3 and thus #4. It provides the field testing and engineering insights and information people need to progress with DKIM in a better way without blinders. I don't get you guys, doing this to push a standard. If you think this is kolsher - its not. * It would be interesting to know what proportions of author addresses were subdomains of the d= value, and vice-versa. Even to know if the domains share common whois registrations (like foo.example.com and bar.example.com) would be nice, though harder to do. Having said all that, I have my own log files that I could analyze, so I'll shut up. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics
sorry, jumped a passing bandwagon, good to go then On Oct 4, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: -Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of bill.ox...@cox.com Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:11 PM To: hsan...@isdg.net Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics 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 And that's what's still there. First half of page 10. The term third-party was removed because DKIM itself doesn't say anything about a binding between d= and anything else in the message. That concept is first presented in ADSP. Since the implementation report is only about DKIM itself, not ADSP, discussing author vs. third party is actually irrelevant. ___ 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
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics
Ian Eiloart wrote: -1 It is extremely relevant. The data is there. The numbers can be calculated from the sample size (~500k) and the proportions. They're nowhere near the numbers (Originator signatures: 1.2 billion Third-party signatures: 184 million) that you quoted in another email, which also don't match the proportions that you quoted. Where did 1.2 billion come from? Sounds like revision v02 is already having its intended effect. Ian, see the previous revision v01 section 4.2 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-01#section-4.2 In fact, what was left in rev 02 was Murry's 78.9% for the OpenDKIM observation of 1st vs 3rd. What was removed was the AOL data point. I stated it as 86% here: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2010q3/014556.html Third party is somewhat of a leap from the domains don't match. Third party per RFC 5016 is well defined. For example, if the from header is in the domain example.com and we see d=foo.example.com, is that really a third party signature? Perhaps some clarity of whether subdomains were permitted to match would be useful.* It doesn't matter. The Observed data is what counts. Per RFC 5016 definitions, this is what we got X for that, Y for this. Oh, and are you thinking this is about implementation of ADSP? As an engineer I look at data, look for patterns, see how they correlate to logical protocols and even justify experiments and problem solving. To me, the data points show there is a strong 1st party stream of mail. POLICY would be important here. But that is not what the report is about. For example, if the report showed the opposite, over 70% of the mail stream was 3rd party (5322.From != DKIM.d per RFC 5016), rest assured, we would be hearing how much POLICY or ADSP is insignificant and should be deprecated - and I would AGREE. The reality is the overwhelming 1st party mail continues to justify a need for policy. But that is my interpretation, not what the report is about. I think it's supposed to be about implementation of DKIM, so that DKIM can be progressed. Please don't let a misunderstanding hold that process up. Its not an mis-understanding. There is nothing holding back DKIM but this constant interference with the reality. Embrace and see how things change. What the factoid removal does is goes against chartered itemize goals of #2, #3 and #4. * It would be interesting to know what proportions of author addresses were subdomains of the d= value, and vice-versa. Even to know if the domains share common whois registrations (like foo.example.com and bar.example.com) would be nice, though harder to do. Having said all that, I have my own log files that I could analyze, so I'll shut up. Your, all data would be welcomed too. Soon I will have accumulated data as well. Currently working out how to present them in our web-view of the statistics. IOW, adding DKIM/POLICY related columns to these statistics: http://www.winserver.com/public/spamstats.wct -- HLS ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics
-Original Message- From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Ian Eiloart Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 4:56 AM To: Hector Santos; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics Oh, and are you thinking this is about implementation of ADSP? I think it's supposed to be about implementation of DKIM, so that DKIM can be progressed. Please don't let a misunderstanding hold that process up. Yes, that's precisely right. The purpose of the implementation report is to discuss DKIM's interoperability only, to satisfy certain IESG requirements. Nothing more. ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
[ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics
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
Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics
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
