> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 8:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-01 > > 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. > > I do believe the DKIM draft warns about having d= be related to other > headers in the message. Perhaps this stat could be restated as:
The spec simply states that DKIM doesn't require any binding at all. (Section 1.1) > d= relations: 73% of the signatures observed had a direct > correspondence to the From: header , meaning the "d=" value in the > signature matched the > domain found in the From: header field. Since there is no binding in RFC4871, which is the focus of the implementation report, it seems more correct to me to just leave that information out. It's more of an ADSP statistic. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
