On Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:00:04 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:36 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and signatures again > > > > My experience is it varies a lot by domain. Some domains are phishing > > targets and some aren't. If it's not a phishing target DKIM doesn't > > matter much either way. If it is, then if they can manage to sign all > > their outbound mail signed/not signed gets to be useful. So I don't > > think looking at global status is a very useful basis for deciding the > > question. > > So you'd rather I run this on some signing domains that aren't obvious > phish targets? I can do that. If you have a few you think might be > interesting, send me the names; if not, I can see if I can come up with > some just based on the numbers. > > And I can constrain it to a specific reporting site (e.g., my own) instead > of all reporters if you think that gives a more interesting view.
I was thinking the opposite. Look at phish targets that sign pretty reliably. I'll contact you offlist with some ideas on which. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
