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 > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] would be traditional) for people to use when their > MUAs balk.
"[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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'.
pgpf970iJCYdE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
