4 ms·
Unfortunately, being part of the standard, it's become fairly common to strip this from email addresses. It's more effective to have an entire domain at your d
by newnewpdro 7y ago
Unfortunately, being part of the standard, it's become fairly common to strip this from email addresses.
It's more effective to have an entire domain at your disposal and just invent $vendor-specific-thing@mydomain.com whenever an email address is needed. On the server end all you need is a catchall to handle it, and you can blackhole whatever addresses become spam magnets (while also knowing which vendor's responsible).
- __david__ 7y agoIt is not part of any standard. + is a valid email address character and is not special in any way.
- newnewpdro 7y agoIt's specified in RFC5233 [0], by "standard" I meant codified in RFC form, like everything else we treat as open internet "standards". [0] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5233
- pseudalopex 7y agoRFC 5223 uses + as an example. It doesn't even specify whether the detail part comes before or after the user part.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago> On email systems that allow for 'subaddressing' or 'detailed addressing' (e.g., "ken+sieve@example.org"), This rfc merely acknowledges that some systems do this. It doesn't say the must or even should.