Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics

[<[e-mail]>]

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