SendGrid does not include it. Other than the occasional vendor using its absence as a scare/sales tactic, it has never been an issue.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Steve Atkins <st...@blighty.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 12, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop < > firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > While the "v=DKIM1" is RECOMMENDED as opposed to REQUIRED I have always > > included it in the DNS record and this appears to be the norm. > > > > However, I have recently been dealing with a provider doesn't include it > in > > either their shared public key or when providing the generated public key > > to the client (for whitelabeling). > > > > Personally I don't like this practice because I believe that the > "v=DKIM1" > > has become so ubiquitous that at least someone has coded a validator that > > treats it as required. > > > > Interested in what others think of this. > > I believe the history behind it not being REQUIRED is so that during > transition > you could publish a single record that was both a valid DKIM key and a > valid DomainKeys key. > > If I were writing a validator I wouldn't require it. If I were publishing a > key record I would, even though leaving it out is entirely within spec and > even though the only semantic value it really adds is "this is not a > DomainKeys key". > > If nothing else, it makes it clearer what someone's intent was when > that RHS is in a TXT record at example.com or _spf.example.com or > _dkim.example.com or _dmarc.example.com ... If you're providing it > to a customer for them to put into their DNS that's probably relevant. > > Cheers, > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > email@example.com > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop