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 reall
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> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
>
> 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 provider doesn't include
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 t
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 f
