how well do you know the RFC-acceptable format for email address?

I wish authenticated sender hashes were turned on by default instead of optional, so domain owners could ignore all incoming traffic from senders that are not registered with a certificat authority. Would cut WAY DOWN on spam.
 
Wow, learned something new. Didn't know that comments and quoted usernames in e-mail addresses were legal.

But: what the test completely ignored was the old "host!user" syntax of UUCP, and the % forwarding syntax. And the mangling of addresses when they transitioned between Bitnet/EARN (which used the IBM RJE address format, with just a hostname and no domain), Arpanet (which used an early version today's RFC format), and UUCP (which heavily relied on the % syntax once the networks became interconnected). Is the % syntax still used anywhere? Just a few years ago, the default sendmail config file still had rules to untangle it.
 
Nah, the percent hack and bang paths aged out over a decade ago. IIRC it was never RFC'd, just traditional unix MTA behavior.
 
14, still in bed before coffee. Maybe it'll be 8 later when fully awake.
 
Twenty years ago or so I read enough about this such that should I ever want to implement a thing touching on it I would rtfm. Should I want to know more? Oooh a game, hang on now.... 11 / 21, says I'm average but I think I'd never worry if null @ null didn't work for me and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top