[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Possible ambiguity in SMTP RFC2821 - your opinon please

2007-11-26 19:29:20
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:32:57 EST, John C Klensin said:

In practical terms, it would probably be better to not count on
this working, or at least to provide an alternate address
(chris(_at_)nic(_dot_)au would be traditional) for people to use when their
MUAs balk.

"chris(_at_)nic(_dot_)au? That can't be right, that doesn't have a .com on the 
end" :)

Given that level of clue out there, I'd say that in *practical* terms
you're just *looking* for trouble if you publish an e-mail address that
doesnt have a '.' anywhere in it.

This is the sort of corner case that makes me wish that RFC2119 had included
a "Paging Randy Bush.." qualifier somewhere between 'SHOULD NOT' and 'MUST NOT'.

Attachment: pgp7kanoGkcRJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature