Talk:Email address
Latest comment: 10 April 2025 by 50.215.55.253 in topic Status of RFC 5322
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Email address Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
User:MiszaBot/config Script error: No such module "Banner shell".
Status of RFC 5322
Template:IETF RFC is not outdated per the [IETF]; if a PHP validator fails on a quoted local part containing a space then the validator is broken. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- One thing this article seems to be very strict on is, "this is what the RFCs say", but seem to lack practical warnings against doing what is "technically allowed". One can certainly set up a server and allow someone the mail address of
"technically allowed"@example.com, but a huge number of users on the internet will simply not be able to send e-mail to that address (because it is a post year 2000 extension that many providers simply will not deal with). Today, one cannot sent such an outbound e-mail via Google's email services, for one example that I'm able to test right now. (( Even though the allowance is much newer, Internationalized (UTF8) local parts are much more accepted )). Vollink (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)- I agree that adding a list of technically valid but problematic addresses would be useful, and that Template:Tq could well be expanded --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree,Mark Branch, 50.215.55.253 (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- A quoted-string as a local-part has been a valid email address since RFC-821 from 1982. I can send email to and receive email from such addresses using both Gmail and Outlook (using a work around for a Gmail bug) and I suspect most other email providers. Quoted-string is not a post year 2000 extension.
- Quoted-strings have generally worked in major MTA software for over forty years; since well before the World Wide Web was conceived.
- UTF-8 support is comparatively new, only standardized in 2012, but advertised by both Gmail and Outlook. Gene.hightower (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- While Template:IETF RFC are 2012, Template:IETF RFC are 2008. BTW, none of those supersede Template:IETF RFC, which are still current. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- RFC-5335 was EXPERIMENTAL, not a standard or proposed standard. And RFC-5335/RFC-6531 didn't change anything related to quoted-strings; UTF-8 support is a different issue. Gene.hightower (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Obrigado pelo renovação 2804:389:C019:F85F:8083:76A2:E345:52C0 (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- RFC-5335 was EXPERIMENTAL, not a standard or proposed standard. And RFC-5335/RFC-6531 didn't change anything related to quoted-strings; UTF-8 support is a different issue. Gene.hightower (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- While Template:IETF RFC are 2012, Template:IETF RFC are 2008. BTW, none of those supersede Template:IETF RFC, which are still current. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that adding a list of technically valid but problematic addresses would be useful, and that Template:Tq could well be expanded --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Abbreviation for the term "email address"?
Is there an abbreviation for the term "email address", like e.g. "ema"? Google had no answer.
Steue (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)