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 <
> mailop@mailop.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
> mailop@mailop.org
> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
>
_______________________________________________
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop

Reply via email to