On Apr 2, 2016, at 5:12 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen
<arnt(_at_)gulbrandsen(_dot_)priv(_dot_)no> wrote:
Ned Freed writes two excellent paragraphs:
As a practical matter, there's lots of software out there that use bogus
regexps to check addresses. Anything that could possibly improve this
situation
is a win in my book. And people have occasionally been known to look at RFCs
and use what they find there.
...
Personally, I'd settle for subaddresses working more than half the time with
web forms. I could not care less about support for obsolete syntax.
This, +1, +100.
Yes, that was a major motivator for why I am proposing this work.
Not to wander on the topic to elsewhere: the presence of an address that
contains + or some widely-used subaddressing character does not make it "the
same" or equivalent in any way. Only the mail server can make that
determination. I am firmly with John Levine and others in the mail camp on this
topic. An implementation that sees user+one@ and user+two@, or user.one@ and
userone@ really needs to treat these as distinct addresses, unless the
implementation is the mail server itself, in which case, it can do whatever it
is configured to do.
It should not be difficult to see that any difference in the local-part string
can be used as a basis for differential routing, or not. Even if a mail server
formally supports sub-addressing, a user or admin can choose (via Sieve scripts
or otherwise) to route those messages to different places.
Sean
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp