<wakes up> MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > I'm still waiting for someone to produce use numbers (of domains) for > ADSP. Just out of curiosity, what number do we have to reach to hit the > technical term "massive"? Somehow I doubt that in it's current > incarnation ADSP will ever have massive implementation. >
I recently surveyed the domains from which Cisco has received valid DKIM signatures: dkim=unknown: 205 domains dkim=all: 135 domains dkim=discardable: 63 domains There are perhaps some other domains that are publishing 'discardable' because they don't send any mail, but we wouldn't have seen them in this study. There's only a weak motivation (involving better DNS caching) for publishing dkim=unknown, so it's hard to gauge ADSP deployment by that number. In order to publish all or discardable, the domain's practices need to align with that, so unless there's a way to tell that a domain is signing all their mail and not publishing ADSP then it's challenging to gauge ADSP deployment for either of these categories. Addressing a question from elsewhere else in this massive thread, my home MTA runs the stock version of spamassassin that comes with Fedora 12. I haven't tweaked anything. Assuming my reading of the configuration files is correct, spamassassin is querying ADSP for incoming mail, and applying a positive bump to the "spamminess" score when a message comes from a domain with dkim=all, and a bigger bump for dkim=discardable. This could account for many of the adsp lookups that people are seeing. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
