>But what is interesting is that Outlook 2002 will not accept [64.171.65.17]
>as the domain part of the address, but Outlook Express 5 will.
>
>So once again, everyone is not following the "rules."
The rules say that "user@[192.0.2.10]" is a valid E-mail addressing scheme
(as they say that "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" is a valid addressing
scheme). Outlook 2002 does not support the IP addressing scheme, but OE 5
will. The rules don't say you have to accept all addressing schemes.
However, in the case of IMail and Yahoo, both are technically breaking the
rules. The rules say one thing, and they are doing something
different. As it stands now, IMail and Yahoo will route E-mail in an
acceptable way (even though technically incorrect). If ICANN decided to
add a TLD "64", IMail and Yahoo would break, and send E-mail to the wrong
location.
Of course, it would be extremely unlikely that ICANN would ever add a TLD
"64" (OK, 20 years from now we'll look back and laugh at that statement),
and I don't fault IMail or Yahoo for violating the RFCs here (unlike the
"Refuse NULL <> Senders" option that Ipswitch refuses to remove or clarify).
-Scott
---
Declude: Anti-virus, Anti-spam and Anti-hijacking solutions for
IMail. http://www.declude.com
---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]
To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
