On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:03:35 +0100, Frank Ellermann said: > > <[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 > http://idn.icann.org/ says:
The example test names: Picking the Hebrew one at random: http://xn--fdbk5d8ap9b8a8d.xn--deba0ad/ is the actual target. I see a dot between the 8d and the xn--, and my Firefox even renders it with a '.' (see attached .png). The other languages *also* both have a '.' between the two parts of the URL *and* render a dot in the middle of the non-ascii string.
<<attachment: idn-has-dot.png>>
pgpmaFwTw1DYr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
