On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 03:09:28AM -0400, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
JRA> There's an argument going on somewhere else right now -- I JRA> thought it was bugtraq, but I seem to have misplaced the JRA> message -- about whether email addresses can have an RHS that JRA> terminates in a . JRA> The poster says no way, I say that 2821 and 1034/5 say yes.I'm not sure. 2822 would be the definitive RFC wouldn't it?
I hoped someone would bite. :-)
2822 3.4.1 says that the *LHS* cannot have a trailing dot without quoting it... but in the next graf, it seems to punt the interpretation of "domain" to 1034.
-------------------- snip snip -------------------- addr-spec = local-part "@" domain local-part = dot-atom / quoted-string / obs-local-part dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS] dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext) atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / ; Any character except controls, "!" / "#" / ; SP, and specials. "$" / "%" / ; Used for atoms "&" / "'" / "*" / "+" / "-" / "/" / "=" / "?" / "^" / "_" / "`" / "{" / "|" / "}" / obs-local-part = word *("." word) word = atom / quoted-string atom = [CFWS] 1*atext [CFWS] -------------------- snip snip --------------------
It would seem that the local-part can't end in a `.'.
[ looks closer ]
... due to the interpretation of dot-atom-text.
You're right, that *is* what the standard says, and I'm surprised they left it that way in the rewrite; that is *not* the way it should have been done. There are good reasons why you might want to terminate a domain name, even in email -- though mostly diagnostic ones, admittedly.
JRA> Someone has to fix the problem. It has been proven to my JRA> satisfaction that the technologists can't: it's not a JRA> technology-fix problem (so few 'problems' are). Someone has JRA> to get *pissed*.In a different context, the same question: do you think the corporate fraud reforms now being debated in congress will solve the problem? People /are/ pissed and are demanding both technological and non-technological fixes. But maybe it's just 3am and I'm starting to hallucinate. ;)
No, I think that contemplating prison time, even sweeping the golf traps at Eglin AFB, will adjust the threat estimate of the corporate execs making the judgement calls.
No one's going to try to hijack an American plane ever again, either. :-}
I can't give any definite examples to protect the people involved, but I know of a couple of people who've had their careers significantly impacted because of this stuff. Maybe not fatal, but third degree burns.
JRA> The topic being false-positive-ly blocked "spam", aren't JRA> those evidence for the prosecution, not the defense?False positives don't scare me, but that's because we've got at least 5 volunteer postmasters screening the reports and rescuing probably 1 message a week, if that. What happens when the true-positives start making a stink because they demand that their spam get through?
Commercial speech is not protected by the first amendment, and the theft-of-service people are likely to win the civil suits, IMHO (IANAL :-)
JRA> Letting spam through likely only gets you yelled at; JRA> accidentally blocking important stuff gets you burned. JRA> We are on the critical path, folks. I know you know that, JRA> but the explicit reminder isn't going to get me fired. JRA> Fail-safe isn't just for aerospace anymore.In a way I agree, but by the same token, email is such a flakey system throughout that I think people have fairly low expectations that a message they send will get delivered, read, and answered.
I don't think so, and I surmise that Chuq might not either...
If youpositively must get an answer to a question and in a hurry, email's a lousy way to ensure that.
Stipulate on that point, but still...
Cheers, -- jra
Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Baylink RFC 2100 The Suncoast Freenet The Things I Think Tampa Bay, Florida http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
"If you don't have a dream; how're you gonna have a dream come true?" -- Captain Sensible, The Damned (from South Pacific's "Happy Talk")