Re: [dmarc-ietf] non-mailing list use case for differing header domains

[Neil Anuskiewicz <[e-mail]>]

I looked at ~3.5 million domain names and here's some of what I found. This
data might be useful to the discussion. As for me, I'm lurking and learning.

Anyway, I looked at ~3.5 million domain names and here's some of what I
found:
FTSE DMARC Adoption
DMARC Policy 10/18/2019
No record 56%
none 34%
quarantine 1%
reject 9%

F500 DMARC Adoption
DMARC Policy 10/18/2019
no record 49%
none 37%
quarantine 4%
reject 9%
ASX DMARC Adoption
DMARC Policy 10/18/2019
no record 59%
none 33%
quarantine 1%
reject 7%





On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:57 PM Neil Anuskiewicz <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I looked at ~3.5 million domain names and here's some of what I found.
> This wasn't a random sample but perhaps this data will be useful in this
> discussion:
>
> FTSE DMARC Adoption
>
> Snapshot (10/18)
> No record 56%
> none 34%
> quarantine 1%
> reject 9%
> F500 DMARC Adoption
>
> Snapshot (10/18)
> no record 49%
> none 37%
> quarantine 4%
> reject 9%
>
> ASX DMARC Adoption
>
> Snapshot (10/18)
> no record 59%
> none 33%
> quarantine 1%
> reject 7%
>
> Thanks.
>
> Neil
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:02 PM Luis E. Muñoz <dmarc-ietf.org=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 30 Jul 2020, at 15:52, Jim Fenton wrote:
>>
>> There's an underlying assumption here that I don't agree with: that
>> DMARC adoption equates to the publication of a p=reject DMARC policy,
>> and that everyone (or at least all Fortune 500 companies) should be
>> doing that. p=reject should only be used when the usage patterns of the
>> domain support that policy. I'm more inclined to say that 85% of Fortune
>> 500 companies are savvy enough not to publish a policy that doesn't fit
>> their usage patterns.
>>
>> I am currently observing ~215.5 million domain names. Out of those, ~64
>> million have a seemingly *valid* SPF record and ~113 million with at
>> least one MX record.
>>
>> This is a current breakdown of the (valid) DMARC records I am observing
>> over the general domain population above. This amounts to an adoption rate
>> of ~1.7%.
>> p count
>> none 2715614
>> quarantine 238584
>> reject 726045
>>
>> It is interesting that roughly half of those are not taking advantage of
>> the reporting. Here are the counts for those with neither rua= nor ruf=
>> in the DMARC records:
>> p count
>> none 1092990
>> quarantine 107767
>> reject 307614
>>
>> I do not have a definitive list of Fortune 500 domain names, but I
>> compile a rolling list of domain names with most traffic using multiple
>> sources, which currently holds ~1.8 million unique domain names.
>>
>> The breakdown of DMARC records from that high-traffic population is shown
>> below, and it amounts to about 6.3%.
>> p count
>> none 79367
>> quarantine 18094
>> reject 15875
>>
>> For completeness, here is the same report, counting only those that have
>> neither rua= nor ruf= in the DMARC record. The ratio of *silent*
>> p=quarantine and p=reject seems around half as in the case of the
>> general population.
>> p count
>> none 32561
>> quarantine 4534
>> reject 2760
>>
>> It would seem that those high-traffic domains are ~5x more likely to
>> adopt DMARC. To me, these numbers speaks of thoughtful and deliberate
>> deployment that outpaces the general domain name registrations.
>>
>> That said, I cannot claim whether the list of high-traffic domains is
>> actually a good proxy for the domain portfolio of the Fortune 500 companies.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> -lem
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmarc mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>>
>