On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:24 AM, Franck Martin <fmar...@linkedin.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 2014, at 11:26 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 26, 2014, at 8:12 PM, Robert Drake <rdr...@direcpath.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 3/26/2014 10:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote: >>>> >>>> and user@2001:db8::1.25 with user@192.0.2.1:25. Who had the good idea to >>>> use : for IPv6 addresses while this is the separator for the port in IPv4? >>>> A few MTA are confused by it. >>> At the network level the IPv6 address is just a big number. No confusion >>> there. At the plaintext level the naked IPv6 address should be wrapped in >>> square brackets. >>> >>> From: >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2 >>> >> >> Two errors, actually… As an RFC-821 address, it should be user@[IP]:port in >> both cases (user@[192.0.2.1]:25 and user@[2001:db8::1]:25). >> > indeed, but MTAs are know to accept any kind of non RFC compliant emails and > trying to make some sense out of it… :P see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7103 which tries to address some of it in a > more deterministic way. > Sure, but that doesn’t mean we should be sending random garbage deliberately. Owen
