ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-dkim] Re: Seriously.

2008-01-23 12:42:37
Jon Callas wrote:

E.g. the syntax <user>@<tld> is legal.

Not under RFC 2821 rules intentionally demanding 
"at least one dot" - to get rid of <user>@<host>
constructs, where <host> is no FQDN.

It will be however legal under 2821bis rules, if
the IESG can resist all temptations to overrule
John's decision.  Of course what's legal or not
isn't necessarily related to what happens if you
try to use a TLD as host in SMTP or NNTP. 

most software incorrectly thinks that example(_at_)ai  
is not a legal email address.

Maybe submit this observation to Dave's collection
of 2821 interoperabilty reports, folks on the SMTP
list had serious difficulties to figure out what's
best.  "Don't talk about it" was no option.

I still think that collapsing " at " into "@" was
a mistake, but I'm like that.

That gives you odd places where LWSP has to work,
it would immediately kill RFC 2822 and dozens of
RFCs built on the new 2822-concepts (excl. "obs").

That I consider deprecating reverse paths while
keeping 1123 5.3.6(a) as a serious mistake (and as
reason of the spam problem, not less) is also odd,
but I consider SPF as "good enough" to fix it. :-)

 Frank

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>