On Mar 18, 2015, at 10:23 AM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> But I guess I could live with it if the consensus moves this way, but to >>> me that seems only because I know the MUST NOT will be violated. > >> At first I bristled at John's proposed change, but he's right that RFC 5321 >> is completely clear on this topic, and it is a full standard. And, yes, lots >> of SMTP applications probably violate the MUST NOT as well, but that doesn't >> change it. > > In my experience, people who write mail software understand the opaque > mailbox rule, and try pretty hard to follow it. Some cheat and do case > folding to match Bob@domain to BOB@domain, but I can't think of any that > match bob+foo@domain or b.ob@domain to bob@domain, other than the MTA that > actually knows what the addresses mean. Gmail does not recognize dots as distinguishable characters within usernames (mailboxes). See https://support.google.com/mail/answer/10313?hl=en Therefore [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] are equivalent. (It also does case folding.) That would be a 500+ million mailbox software example... Sean _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
