Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > You are aware there's a ccTLD .at? :) Yes, but the TLD goes at the very end of the email, so the parser, which strips ".emailbl.org" with that leading dot, can only trip over invalid domains like "a.at..emailbl.org" ... my latter two examples below show what the parser might do if actually handed such things.
a.at.b.at.emailbl.org -> a @ b.at c.real-at.d.at.at.emailbl.org -> c @ d.at.at a.at.b.at..emailbl.org (invalid) ~-> a...@b.at OR a.a...@.emailbl.org a.b.at..emailbl.org (invalid) ~-> a...@.emailbl.org Recall: a @ b.at -> a.at.b.at -> a.at.b.at.emailbl.org c @ d.at.at -> c.real-at.d.at.at -> c.real-at.d.at.at.emailbl.org $ host www..google.com host: 'www..google.com' is not a legal name (empty label) $ host .google.com host: '.google.com' is not a legal name (empty label) $ >> (Oh crap, is this a draft for an RFC?) > > This pretty much was one of my first thoughts, too. I vaguely recall > coming across such an RFC before. Hope someone else can point it out. Indeed.
