On 10/30/2013 3:07 PM, RW wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:13:40 +0100
Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:44:19 -0400
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:06:35 -0500
Adam Moffett <adamli...@plexicomm.net> wrote:
I'm reasonably sure that user@ip makes a valid address, but even
if it is I don't think I've ever observed it anywhere.
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.
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 )
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
Are we splitting hairs? Does it matter either way? I think it's a safe
assumption that none of my users are going to expect to receive an email
to or from an address formatted that way, so scoring it higher would
hurt no one. It's also not certain that a spammer is sending it that
way to begin with, so *not* scoring it high also probably hurts no one.
I do enjoy a good educational argument though.
