3 ms·

Pluses are part of email standard, dots are some nonsense Google thought was a good idea.

by richrichardsson 9y ago

ahmedalsudani 9y ago
As far as I know, plus wildcards are not part of the standard either.
- ipsin 9y ago
  This is an RFC 5233 subaddress.
  - bonercow 9y ago
    You're full of shit. The word "subaddress" doesn't occur anywhere in RFC 5233. The only thing RFC 5233 says about + in email addresses is that it's an allowable character.
    - jsnell 9y ago
      What? It's literally in the title of RFC 5233. "Sieve Email Filtering: Subaddress Extension". The introduction starts with a sentence that defines subaddressing. It has half a dozen references to using + as the separator between the username and the "detail".
function_seven 9y ago
Both + and . are allowable characters in the user part of an email address. AFAIK, the tagging functionality isn’t part of the email standard any more than ignoring dots is. EDIT: huh, turns out RFC 5233 covers this. TIL. Thanks, ipsin
Buge 9y ago
Plusses are an optional part of a standard[1]. The main email standard does not require a+b@c.com to be treated the same as a@c.com [2]. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.3
- 0x0 9y ago
  Another interesting part of dots in emails is that they apparently can't be at the end of the username, EXCEPT if you also "quote" the entire username. So, <a.b.@example.com> is probably invalid but <"a.b."@example.com> (including the "quotes") is supposedly valid. Had an acquaintance who was signed up to a popular email service with "a.b." (their initials) for years until they changed their underlying platform, after which they actually were very sorry to let him know that they could not support his strange email address any more and terminated the account.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  The use of pluses for tagging/subaddressing is an optional part of the standard. + being valid in an email address is not an optional part of the standard.

Pluses are part of email standard, dots are some nonsense Google thought was a good idea.

ahmedalsudani 9y ago

As far as I know, plus wildcards are not part of the standard either.

ipsin 9y ago
This is an RFC 5233 subaddress.
- bonercow 9y ago
  You're full of shit. The word "subaddress" doesn't occur anywhere in RFC 5233. The only thing RFC 5233 says about + in email addresses is that it's an allowable character.
  - jsnell 9y ago
    What? It's literally in the title of RFC 5233. "Sieve Email Filtering: Subaddress Extension". The introduction starts with a sentence that defines subaddressing. It has half a dozen references to using + as the separator between the username and the "detail".

function_seven 9y ago

Both + and . are allowable characters in the user part of an email address. AFAIK, the tagging functionality isn’t part of the email standard any more than ignoring dots is. EDIT: huh, turns out RFC 5233 covers this. TIL. Thanks, ipsin

Buge 9y ago

Plusses are an optional part of a standard[1]. The main email standard does not require a+b@c.com to be treated the same as a@c.com [2]. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.3 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.2.3

0x0 9y ago
Another interesting part of dots in emails is that they apparently can't be at the end of the username, EXCEPT if you also "quote" the entire username. So, <a.b.@example.com> is probably invalid but <"a.b."@example.com> (including the "quotes") is supposedly valid. Had an acquaintance who was signed up to a popular email service with "a.b." (their initials) for years until they changed their underlying platform, after which they actually were very sorry to let him know that they could not support his strange email address any more and terminated the account.
shkkmo 9y ago
The use of pluses for tagging/subaddressing is an optional part of the standard. + being valid in an email address is not an optional part of the standard.