3 ms·
> in practice their only use these days is attacks where you confuse a badly-written server Or, you know, if you actually want to use an at sign in the manner
by eadmund 5y ago
> in practice their only use these days is attacks where you confuse a badly-written server
Or, you know, if you actually want to use an at sign in the manner allowed by the RFCs. That's the point of standards: if something is allowed, then … it is allowed.
Refusing to accept behaviour permitted by the standard is just broken.
- chrismorgan 5y agoUsage is what matters. Standards documents only have value as long as people follow them; once enough people deviate, they cease to have meaning. This is thoroughly the case with a lot of stuff pertaining to email: if you want to parse arbitrary emails, for example, the relevant MIME RFCs are altogether insufficient, because too many people have done it incorrectly de jure, often to the point where it’s no longer incorrect de facto because everyone supports the deviation. (This is a deviation from spec in the direction of permission.) By hearsay alone, I say: comments and quoted strings in email addresses are, de facto, more or less dead. Comments especially, which were intended just as a compatibility measure for stuff from over forty years ago (when this was being developed organically, before there was any real spec). Most software whose direct business is email (that is, MUAs and MTAs) will more or less support them for historical reasons, but newer MUAs are likely not to support them in full (again especially comments), and I suspect the considerable majority of other software that deals in email addresses won’t support one or both of them. (This is a deviation from spec in the direction of restriction.)