Re: [mailop] spf and mx: tokens

On 2018-04-12 05:41:46 (+0800), Carl Byington wrote: While checking dmarc, we check for dkim signatures. If that fails, we look for spf records. A very small number of those contain mx: tokens. While chasing a bug in my code, it became obvious that almost everyone misuses those, and they

Re: [mailop] Opinions on public DKIM records without a version

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 wrote: > > > On Apr 12, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop < > mailop@mailop.org>

Re: [mailop] Opinions on public DKIM records without a version

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Ken O'Driscoll via mailop > 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

[mailop] Opinions on public DKIM records without a version

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

Re: [mailop] spf and mx: tokens

On 11/04/2018 22:41, Carl Byington wrote: So we could (do what they want) interpret mx:mail.example.com as if it were a:mail.example.com - we won't be rejecting mail that the sending domain intended for us to accept. But that just hides their error and possibly increases the chances of yet more