Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I’ve got as a task for the next major OpenDKIM release a reworking of > our statistics collection component. This is something that’s off by > default; one must specifically enable it both at compile time and at > run time. > > What I’m considering is a change to the code so that it collects a > larger set of interesting things instead of just pass/fail counts, > which canonicalizations are in use, what signing algorithm is in use, > whether or not “l=” is in use, and the date/time a domain was last > seen. Some of the data I’m looking at collecting include: > > - On failure, whether or not the “bh” matched (so you can tell whether > it was a body change or a header change that broke it) > > - On failure, if “z=” was present, record the name of the header(s) > that were changed > > - Use of g=, t= in keys > > - Use of x=, t=, z=, l= in signatures > > - If l= was used, how often extra data was present > > - Count of times t= was used and contained a future timestamp > > - Count of retrieved key records that contained a syntax error > > - Count of signatures referencing nonexistent keys > > - ADSP statistics > > - Count of third-party signatures > > - Count of messages containing multiple signatures > > For those of you thinking about statistics regarding DKIM, have I > missed any that might be useful to the working group? >
If we're just talking about a statistics _collection_ component I'd add the date/time of a DKIM sign/verify action, in order to be able to generate trend reports over longer periods of time. If we're talking about a statistics _analysis_ tool, then I'd vote for some trend report 'buttons'. /rolf _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
