What is your point / the information you find relevant here to WGLC of the bis project?
We do many times this volume in a single day and are happy to share top line stats. Seth -mobile On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 18:08 Matthäus Wander <mail= 40wander.scie...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Here is an evaluation of 84k aggregate reports in the timespan of > 2020-2024. > > 481 reporting organizations > derived from 896 distinct <org_name> strings > ---+--- > 44 use Organization Names ("Example") > with min=1, median=1.0, mean=1.11, max=3 distinct names > 344 use Organizational Domains only ("example.net") > with min=1, median=1.0, mean=1.05, max=10 distinct domains > 93 use Hostnames and Domains ("mx1.example.net") > with min=1, median=2, mean=5.23, max=315 distinct hosts > ---+--- > 364 report version > 2 report version__other > 0 report meta_error > 450 report sp > 340 report sp__empty > 39 report fo__v1 > 0 report fo__v1empty > 69 report override_reason > 21 report envelope_to > 354 report envelope_from__v1 > 119 report envelope_from__v1empty > 18 report envelope_from__v1missing > 3 report dkim_selector__empty > 94 report dkim_selector__missing > 18 report dkim_result__none > 19 report dkim_human_result > 17 report dkim_human_result__copy > 357 report spf_scope__v1 > ---+--- > Human-comprehensible result: > - 76% (364/481) of reporters announce the use of the RFC 7489 > <version>1.0</version> schema. > - No one seems to use <error> below <report_metadata>. > - 71% (340/481) report an empty <sp></sp> instead of the default value. > - 11% (39/364) of 1.0 reporters include the <fo> element, although it's > actually mandatory. Draft schema does not have <fo>. > > <identifiers>: > - 4% (21/481) use <envelope_to>. > - 97% (351/364) of 1.0 reporters use <envelope_from>. Draft schema does > not have <envelope_from>. > - 33% (119/364) have used an empty <envelope_from> (i.e., reported a > bounce) at least once. > - 5% (18/364) have omitted <envelope_from> at least once, even though > it is mandatory in 1.0. > - The remaining 62% either did not receive a bounce or do not report > bounces. > > <dkim>: > - 20% (94/481) have omitted the optional <selector> in a DKIM result at > least once. > - 4% (18/481) have reported a DKIM <result>none</result>, even though > they could've instead omit the <dkim> element altogether. > - 4% (19/481) have used the DKIM <human_result>, but only 2 used it for > extra information that was not just a copy of <result>. > > Regards, > Matt > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc