• CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Question 5 is incorrect, name@example is a fully valid email address, even after RFC 2822

    The spec of RFC 2822 defines an address (3.4.1) as:

    local-part "@" domain
    

    domain is defined (3.4.1) as:

    domain = dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domain
    

    dot-atom is defined (3.2.4) as:

    dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]
    dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)
    

    1*atext meaning at least 1 alphanumeric character, followed by *("." 1*atext) meaning at least 0 "." 1*atext


    If tomorrow, google decided to use its google top-level domain as an email domain, it would be perfectly valid, as could any other company owning top-level domains

    Google even owns a gmail TLD so I wouldn’t even be surprised if they decided to use it

    • HereIAm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      4 days ago

      I don’t know if they changes the answer to the question, but it now says name@example is valid.

      • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        4 days ago

        It does say it’s valid, but also that it’s obsolete, and while the RFC does define valid but obsolete specs, there is nothing defining domains without a dot as obsolete, and it is in fact defined in the regular spec, not the obsolete section

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        It says valid but obsolete, which sounds like a contradiction to me.

        This is technically valid but considered obsolete. RFC 822 allowed domains without dots, but RFC 2822 made this obsolete.

        Do email suffix not indicate a different domain like .org and .com for websites?

      • DaPorkchop_@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yes, the top-level domain is still just a domain. I’m not aware of any public Internet services which are reachable from a TLD directly, and it’s strongly discouraged by ICANN, but there isn’t any technical limitation preventing e.g. someone at Verisign from setting up example@com.

      • mobotsar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        In response to your edit.

        Yes, or countries could use their cctld, e.g. email@us or noreply@uk.

        Or any tld owner could do the same with theirs, of course.

      • Atherel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        you could also send mails within your local network, the hostname just has to resolve and have a mail service running