4 ms·

Are they being stupid though? For example, hotnail.com is a parked domain. There's virtually no chance that a user actually has an email address there and sendi

Are they being stupid though? For example, hotnail.com is a parked domain. There's virtually no chance that a user actually has an email address there and sending an email to a wrong email address is bad for the email provider reputation... I mean it's not like they block a huge amount of domain names but with their volumes, it makes sense to avoid sending emails that will never be received by their intended recipients anyway... Could it inconvenience legitimate users? Yeah, there's a probably of that but it's negligible and so far we've never had a complaint about it... On the other hand, we've had users telling us that it was good that our system caught their typo.

Bartweiss 10y ago
This is a fair point. I guess it's the sort of thing that I'd prefer to see fixed with a double-check prompt instead of a rejection, but I doubt it's causing many problems. I was primarily thinking of short domains like "gmail" and "aol". For those, I can see a company called, say, "Gail" getting blocked from legitimately using "Gail.com". "Hotnail" seems a lot less risky. Not a big problem, I just have an aesthetic objection to very high-friction things like blocking possibly-legal domains. As a double-check option I wouldn't object, and in fairness it's possible no one has ever been inconvenienced.