nanog mailing list archives
Re: SMTP addresses in <>
From: Sean Figgins <sean () labrats us>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:32:13 -0700
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Because....we wouldn't have e-mail? Consider the pain of getting worldwide interoperability for a "notmail" system that insisted on strict validation...
The SMTP ship has already sailed, so trying to change the behavior of email would be difficult.
I do, however, reject the notion that strict validation make implementation of interoperability painful. If the specifications are clearly defined, rather than allowing interpretation by the implementer, then interoperability would be almost assured. The problem is that many specifications in RFCs are loose and left open to interpretation by the individual software programmers.
But, to the original question... If the customer's email is important to the business, then you may want to accept the email that may not be complaint to a strict interpretation of the RFC.
-Sean
Current thread:
- SMTP addresses in <> Seth Mattinen (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> William Herrin (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Donald Stahl (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Sean Donelan (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Randy Bush (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Donald Stahl (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Joe Greco (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> William Herrin (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Joe Greco (Jan 07)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Andrew Sullivan (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Alexander Harrowell (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Sean Figgins (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Greg Skinner (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> William Herrin (Jan 04)
- [admin] Re: SMTP addresses in <> Martin Hannigan (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Randy Bush (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 04)
- Re: SMTP addresses in <> Jeff Kell (Jan 04)