Subject: [ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:45:02 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : RFC4871 Implementation Report
	Author(s)       : M. Kucherawy
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-01.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2010-09-29

This document contains an implementation report for the IESG covering
DKIM in support of the advancement of that specification along the
Standards Track.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:58:26 -0700

I've posted a new issue of the DKIM implementation report.  The most interesting changes are the inclusion of a day of sample data from AOL and a revision of the data summary reported by the OpenDKIM stats project using the updated schema, which allows a few interesting new observations.

(You'll just have to read it to find out what they are!)

-MSK

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:22:40 -0400

> I've posted a new issue of the DKIM implementation report.  The most interesting changes are the inclusion of a day of sample data from AOL and a revision of the data summary reported by the OpenDK…

Thanks for the report.

I believe the most outstanding data point here is the extremely high 
original signing of mail.  AOL's 1.2 out of 1.4 billion or 86% 
signatures were 1st party and your own statistics showed 73% were 1st 
party.

This validates what I have always been felt is the high promise for 
DKIM exclusive (1st party or passive 3rd party) operations.  Policy is 
inevitable to facilitate policy (domain expectation) fault detection.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

---

From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:09:59 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:23 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Updated implementation report
> 
> > I've posted a new issue of the DKIM implementation report.  The most
> interesting changes are the inclusion of a day of sample data from AOL
and
> a revision of the data summary reported by the OpenDKIM stats project
> using the updated schema, which allows a few interesting new
observations.

Outstanding job Murray. Is this sufficient to achieve the intended goal?
> signatures were 1st party and your own statistics showed 73% were 1st

This isn't particularly surprising to me. I've always believed there is
a significantly higher value for 1st party signing compared to 3rd
party. The value proposition has always seemed to be much more
compelling to me.

It would be interesting if the data could be sliced and diced a little
differently. 

For example, it would be interesting to look at percentage based on
volume compared to percentage based on number of domains. In other
words, are a small number of large domains skewing the reported numbers.

It would also be interesting to look at breakout percentage of domains
signing based on number of emails received from that domain. So,
arbitrarily segment the set into quintiles based on number of mails
received for that domain and then look at signing practices within the
quintile.

Mike

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:13:39 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of MH Michael Hammer (5304)
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:10 PM
> To: Hector Santos; [email-masked]

I've asked our AD to comment on that very question.  I'll let you know what he says (or he might post his review of it here).

> received for that domain and then look at signing practices within the

We can do both of those.  What colour would you like it?