<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Frank
