On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:44:03 PDT, Yuri Inglikov said:
There appears to be some disconnect between ABNF syntax and a prose. I.e. i t
appears that ABNF requires at least 2 sub-domain parts, while prose discu sses
"one or more dot-separated components". Which one is "more correct" an d any
scenario when a single-component domain name can be valid / useful in modern
SMTP?
Can you give an example of a "single-component domain name" that would *not*
be flagged as a failure to canonalize to a FQDN?
Are there any e-mail addresses that *work* (or even could *potentially* work)
of the form 'userid(_at_)com' or 'userid(_at_)net' or
'some(_dot_)full(_dot_)name(_at_)to' or anything
else like that?
postmaster(_at_)ws ?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net