> From: Rolf E. Sonneveld [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 2:53 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: [email protected] WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Interesting recent statistics > > [...] > >> 1) There's a slow but steady increase in signed message rates: >> http://www.opendkim.org/stats/report.html#signing_trend (ignore the first >> row, that month was skewed; >> also the current month is, of course, incomplete) > > Good news! Although... we don't know whether the increase is due to spammers > that adopt DKIM or legit > senders adopting DKIM.
We have some hints in the data, since I have some correlation between DKIM-specific message data and SpamAssassin results. I just need to build the right SQL query. I'll post again when I have that. >> 3) Overall pass rates are pretty high, even when they transit MLMs: >> http://www.opendkim.org/stats/report.html#passfail > > What I don't understand here, what's what. I see four figures: > > Signatures: 1362786 Ignored: 482 Pass: 1275158 Failed (body): 16027 > > But this row does not provide the correct pass/fail rate in total, does it? I > thought the pass rate was > (1,362,786 - 16,020) / (1,362,786), or if we subtract the ignored: (1,362,786 > - 482 - 16,020) / (1,362,786). > This, however, is not correct: the number of failed is not the total number > of failed, only the body failed > (as is indicated). Is it possible to add a fifth figure: failed (header), to > this row in order to have a > complete list of figures? Pass/fail is an indication of whether or not the signature verified. A signature fails to verify if there was a header hash mismatch or a body hash mismatch. Thus: failed(header) = total - ignored - pass - failed(body) _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
