Talk:Email address

message: IP address 80.108.8.19 recently reverted a change by user:Snori, with the description "Fully qualified domains end with a dot. Reverting the comment-less vandalism". While I would have preferred that user:Snori provide a comment, his removal of the trailing dot from the FQDN was correct:
unlike the syntax of RFC 1034 and RFC 1035, there is no trailing period in the RFC 5321 domain name. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reversion by 80.108.8.19  

message: Some e-mail servers ignore everything after a plus sign (less commonly, a minus sign) so that the user can hand out different addresses to different organizations and thus know who has sold his address without authorization. Email address#Local-part claims "Note that characters after a plus sign + are generally ignored", which seems too strong. Certainly there are servers that do so, and they may even be common, but they are not the norm. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevalence of tagged addresses? 

message: Currently, the quoted space as the full local part (" "@example.com, or even \ @example.com) is listed as invalid. Does someone know why, since the RFC allows quoted spaces and doesn't say anything about the local part having at least one non-space character? -- Poromenos (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoted space as the full local part? 

message: Would it be desirable to update the references to use ,  and  instead of plain text and text blocks? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style for listing IETF RFC and STD docuuments 

message: Could the edit by 117.237.210.103 be referring to source routing as one of the three parts of an address? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean the edits by ; the IP just undid one of the edits and I undid the other one.  The text at the URL in their edit summary listed the "@" character as the second part.  I wouldn't call it incorrect, but I think the original text of the article better matches the common usage of the term "part" and as a result is more understandable. –LiberatorG (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by 117.237.210.103 

message: The article has links to, e.g., , ; it's not that difficult to read them instead of making incorrect changes based on assumptions. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read the relevant RFCs before making changes based on what the editor presumes is in them 

message: "A local part is either a Dot-string or a Quoted-string..." - have no idea what a dot string is. Guesses don't count.
Refactoring, or a 'Dot-string' link would be useful / appreciated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bs27975 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are definitions
 in . There are multiple citations of that document, with different sections, different quotations, or both, and I'd like to cut out the redundancy without losing information, but I'm not sure how best to retain the functionality of  while rendering the common information only once. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Dot-string'? 

message: The example of a "bad email address" show this example: i_like_underscore@but_its_not_allowed_in_this_part.example.com.
That doesn't seem to be correct as per RFC 2181, section 11, "Name syntax", as stated here.
Also see rfc3696, sub 2: "Any characters, or combination of bits (as octets), are permitted in DNS [=domain] names."
It continues: "However, there is a preferred form [...] the "LDH rule", [that] provides that the labels (words or strings separated by periods) that make up a domain name must consist of only the ASCII [ASCII] alphabetic and numeric characters, plus the hyphen."
So, while preferred, it's not required.
JHBonarius (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In every way I read RFC 2181, section 11 (the section above quoted ), is specific to non-hostname resource records and those, in turn MIGHT include labels from hostname record types.  That is, it's fine to have a weird binary string as a non-hostname resource record's label, but that doesn't automatically apply to MX, CNAME, A, or AAAA DNS records.  But absolutely are used for things like TXT records (which are not expected to point to a hostname).  That is, pay close attention to the first paragraph of that section. Vollink (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect part: no underscores in domain name