[ietf-dkim] Interesting recent statistics

[Rolf E. Sonneveld]

Hi, Murray,

On 2/8/11 8:31 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> A few statistics OpenDKIM captured recently that might amuse some of you:
>

Interesting figures!

> 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.

> 2) "To:" is now far and away the most munged header field invalidating 
> signatures: http://www.opendkim.org/stats/report.html#broken_headers
>
> 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?

> 4) Oddly, signed messages with huge numbers of Received: header fields 
> almost always pass verification, including one with 39 of them: 
> http://www.opendkim.org/stats/report.html#received_correlation (let's 
> see SPF do that!),
>

+1

> though that message was ultimately rejected for having too many 
> Received: fields.
>

Too bad ;-)

/rolf

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/attachments/20110208/e9383cd2/attachment.html