--- 1/draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-04.txt 2010-11-09 22:16:32.000000000 +0100 +++ 2/draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-05.txt 2010-11-09 22:16:32.000000000 +0100 @@ -1,18 +1,18 @@ DKIM Working Group M. Kucherawy Internet-Draft Cloudmark -Intended status: Informational November 7, 2010 -Expires: May 11, 2011 +Intended status: Informational November 9, 2010 +Expires: May 13, 2011 RFC4871 Implementation Report - draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-04 + draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-05 Abstract This document contains an implementation report for the IESG covering DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) in support of the advancement of that specification along the Standards Track. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the @@ -21,21 +21,21 @@ Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 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 (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -246,20 +246,26 @@ Keys with Specific Granularity: 14 keys were retrieved that had specific names in their "g=" tags. Keys with Syntax Errors: Less than 0.1% of keys retrieved from the DNS had syntax errors. DomainKeys Compatibility: 1.2% of the retrieved keys appeared to be intended for use with the older DomainKeys proposal rather than 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 not found in the DNS Optional Signature Tags: Of the optional signature tags supported by the base specification, "t=" was seen 46.6% of the time (1% of 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 the time; "z=" was seen 7.2% of the time. Body Length Limits: Of the signatures for which "l=" was used, 8.4%