moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu (Keith Moore) wrote on 02.10.02 in
<200210021306(_dot_)g92D6D026932(_at_)astro(_dot_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>:
so? there are lots of addresses which are valid syntax but
not valid because the domain is not defined or the IP
address (in the domain literal) does not exist or is not
assigned to a host.
I'm not sure I buy that reasoning. You seem to be saying that since it's
not possible to detect all invalid addresses syntactically that the
ability to trap some syntactically (or more than currently trapped) is
irrelevant.
no, I'm saying that
- there is useful separation of function here between detecting syntax
errors and detecting addresses that are invalid for other reasons that
should not be discarded
Aren't you both missing a point here?
These particular bad domain literals certainly *should* be detected
syntactically - not by the SMTP checker, but by the convert-to-IP-address
routine. (Or by the convert-to-other-transport-address routine, if
applicable. And then it might even be legal.)
That is exactly the same case as for the "" localpart - only those parties
which actually need to understand it should decide if it is syntactically
valid, the rest of the world can just as well handle this as an opaque
token.
MfG Kai