TheBigRoomXXL@leminal.space to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 4 days agoEveryone knows what an email address is, right? (Quiz)e-mail.wtfexternal-linkmessage-square153fedilinkarrow-up1847arrow-down17
arrow-up1840arrow-down1external-linkEveryone knows what an email address is, right? (Quiz)e-mail.wtfTheBigRoomXXL@leminal.space to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 4 days agomessage-square153fedilink
minus-squareHereIAm@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up26·3 days agoI don’t know if they changes the answer to the question, but it now says name@example is valid.
minus-squareCommanderCloon@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up34·3 days agoIt does say it’s valid, but also that it’s obsolete, and while the RFC does define valid but obsolete specs, there is nothing defining domains without a dot as obsolete, and it is in fact defined in the regular spec, not the obsolete section
minus-squareHereIAm@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·3 days agoI see what you mean, I’m with you now.
minus-squaresnooggums@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·3 days agoIt says valid but obsolete, which sounds like a contradiction to me. This is technically valid but considered obsolete. RFC 822 allowed domains without dots, but RFC 2822 made this obsolete. Do email suffix not indicate a different domain like .org and .com for websites?
I don’t know if they changes the answer to the question, but it now says
name@exampleis valid.It does say it’s valid, but also that it’s obsolete, and while the RFC does define valid but obsolete specs, there is nothing defining domains without a dot as obsolete, and it is in fact defined in the regular spec, not the obsolete section
I see what you mean, I’m with you now.
It says valid but obsolete, which sounds like a contradiction to me.
Do email suffix not indicate a different domain like .org and .com for websites?