azhie, tracking CM may or may not be effective enough for you. It is hard to tell. I had scant CM before getting pregnant the first time and then had no CM for almost a year and a half after giving birth, but then I did have lots of CM before actually ovulating the first time. To overcome the breastfeeding hormones, you may need larger amounts of estrogen, etc, that would give you more CM than you might normally have. Additionally, without CM, sperm would live for only a very short time, like a matter of hours. Most people can conceive based based on DTD several days before ovulation. Without CM, you would have to DTD very, very close to ovulation, and even then, it may be difficult. If you do not have CM, the probability of you getting pregnant is very low, but if you happen to get the right day, it could happen. If you want more accuracy than that, consider looking into the Marquette Method.
MamaJen, you're right that while it is very uncommon, some women do regain their fertility quite quickly, even with breastfeeding around the clock, and I don't know all what contributes to that. 8 weeks seems to be the start of that, hence being allowed to ignore bleeding before 56 days but not after. Before 6 months, it is unlikely that a woman will get pregnant and have a long enough luteal phase before any sort of a warning bleed (though it does happen in about 1% of cases). I would not ever ignore more-fertile type CM, and definitely do not ignore any sort of blood beyond 56 days postpartum.