This is a small 2 days collection break down of the signed mail coming in:
Thanks.
-- 25.9% : dkim_body_hash_mismatch
I was going to ask...
I should probably add a recording which of these has List-IDs, but I
think the high body hash failures are most list systems.
...but you
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Hector Santos
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 2 Day Collection Stats
-- 25.9
Breaking that down further: Of the 8,219, 6,614 (80.4%) were author domain
signatures, so the rest were presumably list signatures (or something else).
57 of them failed even in the presence of an l= tag.
More work for Murray. Distribution of the l= values? Particularly l=0
Mark.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Delany
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:15 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 2 Day Collection Stats
57 of them failed even in the presence
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 11:41 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 2 Day Collection Stats
57 of them failed even
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
And, anticipating the next question(s):
Signatures with other l= values that were in turn larger than the message
received: 10389
Subset of those that still passed: 9870 (95%)
Subset of those that still passed and looked like list traffic: 5504 (53%)
Based
This is a small 2 days collection break down of the signed mail coming in:
- total msgs :67028
- dkim_sign : 1779 (2.7% signed)
- dkim_pass : 89.9%
- dkim_fail : 10.1%
--25.9% : dkim_body_hash_mismatch
--14.0% : dkim_signature_bad
--37.6% :
