[ietf-dkim] Interesting recent statistics
Rolf E. Sonneveld
R.E.Sonneveld at sonnection.nl
Tue Feb 8 14:53:17 PST 2011
On 2/8/11 8:31 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> A few statistics OpenDKIM captured recently that might amuse some of you:
> 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:
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!),
> though that message was ultimately rejected for having too many
> Received: fields.
Too bad ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ietf-dkim