John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >> So, do I understand correctly: that the formally valid rfc822 addresses >> (such as examples above containing a '+' or '-' separator or any number >> of embedded '.'s) are handled /by convention/ by mail transport and >> delivery agents in their own _special way_? > > To my knowledge, the ignorng of Full Stops is gmail-specific. Testing > confirms this: > > Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at siduri.sbih.org. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following > addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1) > >> (Where /special way/ means ignoring suffices or embedded dots) > > It is an MTA/MDA thing. Mostly the MTA. Some will allow user+ext, others > user-ext, and stll others refuse any sort of extension. > >> That sounds strange -- unless there is some spec or informal but defacto >> standard common agreement, how can one know what is /supposed/ to happen? > > Assume that user@ is the only legal addressm until you test. Or ask your > administrator, as evenif sendmail/postfx/exim/qmail is in use,the admin > mght have turned that functionality off. > >> Or in other words, you only know what will happen by testing individual >> pair combinations. And then I guess unwanted application /favors/ is yet >> another part of the story. > > That sounds about right to me. >
Sounds like an undesirable favor to me. These [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ought to be valid rfc822, eh? But certain MTAs and certain MDAs will prevent such mail addresses from working. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
