sorry, jumped a passing bandwagon, good to go then On Oct 4, 2010, at 10:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of [email protected] >> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 3:11 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st >> vs 3rd party statistics >> >> I would be curious also but would be happy with a >> >> 73% of the signatures were author signatures meaning the "d=" value in >> the signature matched the domain found in the From:header field >> >> and let the reader draw their own conclusions > > And that's what's still there. First half of page 10. > > The term "third-party" was removed because DKIM itself doesn't say anything > about a binding between "d=" and anything else in the message. That concept > is first presented in ADSP. Since the implementation report is only about > DKIM itself, not ADSP, discussing author vs. third party is actually > irrelevant. > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
