draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-04.txt   draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-05.txt 
DKIM Working Group M. Kucherawy DKIM Working Group M. Kucherawy
Internet-Draft Cloudmark Internet-Draft Cloudmark
Intended status: Informational November 7, 2010 Intended status: Informational November 9, 2010
Expires: May 11, 2011 Expires: May 13, 2011
RFC4871 Implementation Report RFC4871 Implementation Report
draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-04 draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-05
Abstract Abstract
This document contains an implementation report for the IESG covering This document contains an implementation report for the IESG covering
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) in support of the advancement of DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) in support of the advancement of
that specification along the Standards Track. that specification along the Standards Track.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
skipping to change at page 1, line 32 skipping to change at page 1, line 32
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 11, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 13, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 9, line 22 skipping to change at page 9, line 22
Keys with Specific Granularity: 14 keys were retrieved that had Keys with Specific Granularity: 14 keys were retrieved that had
specific names in their "g=" tags. specific names in their "g=" tags.
Keys with Syntax Errors: Less than 0.1% of keys retrieved from the Keys with Syntax Errors: Less than 0.1% of keys retrieved from the
DNS had syntax errors. DNS had syntax errors.
DomainKeys Compatibility: 1.2% of the retrieved keys appeared to be DomainKeys Compatibility: 1.2% of the retrieved keys appeared to be
intended for use with the older DomainKeys proposal rather than intended for use with the older DomainKeys proposal rather than
DKIM DKIM
AUID use: 52.4% of signatures did not contain an explicit AUID ("i="
value). Of those that did, 86.6% used a domain matching the SDID
("d=" value). Across all "i=" tags present, 42.8% provided no
local-part, 53.4% included a local-part matching the one found in
the From: field, and the remainder had a different local-part.
Missing Keys: 1.7% of signatures received referenced keys that were Missing Keys: 1.7% of signatures received referenced keys that were
not found in the DNS not found in the DNS
Optional Signature Tags: Of the optional signature tags supported by Optional Signature Tags: Of the optional signature tags supported by
the base specification, "t=" was seen 46.6% of the time (1% of the base specification, "t=" was seen 46.6% of the time (1% of
which included timestamps in the future, even after forgiving some which included timestamps in the future, even after forgiving some
clock drift); "x=" was seen 4.2% of the time; "l=" was seen 4% of clock drift); "x=" was seen 4.2% of the time; "l=" was seen 4% of
the time; "z=" was seen 7.2% of the time. the time; "z=" was seen 7.2% of the time.
Body Length Limits: Of the signatures for which "l=" was used, 8.4% Body Length Limits: Of the signatures for which "l=" was used, 8.4%
 End of changes. 4 change blocks. 
4 lines changed or deleted 10 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/