John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: >> 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. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is valid RFC 822, but it won't be accepted > 1) there is no such user as nosuchuser at example.org > 2) example.org has no MTA listening, anyway. > > Your two examples are valid as per RFC 822. If that is a valid > destination (mailbox, in RFC 822 parlance) or not, that is a per-system > thing.
On reflection, I can imagine that the user mail system (eg, gmail) might allow creation of ad-hoc aliases .. as GW originally explained <duh>. In this case, gmail would simply have to prohibit such aliases from their valid accounts (which they do) -- and accept delivery and translate the alias on receipt. Nobody else has to know about it; there's no required cooperation on the part of MTAs, as far as I can see. So I guess there's nothing to _yechhh_ about .. it is a feature. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
