On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Kurt Roeckx <[email protected]> wrote: > It's my understanding that in general about 90% of the DKIM mails > have a bad signature. >
This seems to contradict the experience of most other operators. I'm at a loss to understand why this is out of bounds for this conversation. It's also my understanding that were DKIM > tends to fail, SPF tends to work and the other way around. > > This part is consistent with most operator experience as I understand it. > But > DMARC seems to combining the two in such a way it's more than > likely to have a failure as result instead of a pass. > In what way? Specifically, why "more than likely"? That's certainly true in your particular case where DKIM has such a low success rate, but there is ample anecdotal evidence that it is a sound premise most everywhere else. > > Why I'm seeing 90% failure in DKIM instead of 10% is irrelevant. > > I find that rather an unfortunate position, especially since it interferes with our ability to answer your questions. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
