>On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:44:19 -0400 >David F. Skoll wrote: >> My reading of RFC5321 seems to indicate that "user@1.2.3.4" is NOT >> a valid address. It should instead be written as "user@[1.2.3.4]"
On 30.10.13 17:53, RW wrote: >If you are referring to 4.1.3. I would say it's defining a routing >mechanism rather than limiting what a valid address is.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:13:40 +0100 Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:4.1.2 defines it as part of mail address: address-literal = "[" ( IPv4-address-literal / IPv6-address-literal / General-address-literal ) "]" Mailbox = Local-part "@" ( Domain / address-literal )
On 30.10.13 20:07, RW wrote:
But does anything actually say that 1.2.3.4 can't be treated as a hostname. Isn't the point of the [] to be a hint to the server that it can treat the contents as an IP address and deliver to that address. I don't see anything obviously wrong with something like no-reply@1.2.3.4
Well, it's not valid e-mail address and some MTAs can reject it (I guess some even do). That's all. -- Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/ Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address. Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu. "Two words: Windows survives." - Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior strategist "So does syphillis. Good thing we have penicillin." - Matthew Alton
