[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Possible ambiguity in SMTP RFC2821 - your opinon please

2007-11-27 00:21:27

<Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu> wrote:

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.

BTW, an interpretation of RFC 2142 about abuse@ addresses for
any given FQDN takes the zone cut adding abuse(_at_)(_dot_)  For the IDN
test domains that ends up with no-dot abuse@ addresses, doesn't
it ?  Should that go into an erratum for RFC 2142 ?  Of course
RFC 2142 couldn't foresee what RFC 2821 says, but it's still
an interesting detail for folks trying to implement RFC 2142,
or even trying to promote it - the abuse@ part is important,
the other mailbox names in RFC 2142 are less convincing.