TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Why I Am Not Switching to Verizon

Re: Why I Am Not Switching to Verizon

Michael D. Sullivan (userid@camsul.example.invalid)
Sat, 05 May 2007 08:33:58 GMT

On 5/3/2007 5:32 PM, wrote:

> In article <>, zalek
> <> wrote:

>> I am pissed off with my current ISP -- Time Warner Road Runner -- they
>> cut back on technicians and now I have to wait one week for
>> appointment. I checked with Verizon DSL -- they they established new
>> policy that email address must be alphanumeric.

> What's so unusual about that? I'd have to go look for the RFC to be
> sure, but I thought the alphanumeric requirement was part of the
> standard.

This is certainly not the case. In the usual contorted way of
defining syntax, RFC 822 allows the "local-part" of an email address
(the part before the "at" symbol) to be any number of one or more
"words" separated by dots (periods or full stops); a "word", on the
other hand, can be either an "atom" or a "quoted-string". An "atom"
can be any number of "chars" other than "specials", "spaces", or
"ctls" (i.e., any ASCII character from 0 to 127 other than
()<>@,;:\".[] space, or ASCII 0-31, 127. A "quoted -string" is a
quote-mark followed by one or more "qtext" or "quoted-pair"
characters, followed by a quote-mark ("). A "qtext" is any "char"
(ASCII 0-127) other than the quote-mark, backslash (\), or
carriage-return(CR), but including "linear-white-space" (which, in
turn is a combination of optional "CRLFs" (i.e., CR followed by LF)
and "LWSP-chars" (spaces or horizontal tabs). Finally, a
"quoted-pair" is a backslash followd by any "char".

So the RFC would permit email addresses with local-parts such as
john.smith, john-smith, $John!=+^Smith*, John_Smith,
"\\\"Jo(hn@Sm]]ith", or even Jo\ hn\ Smith and much, much weirder

Michael D. Sullivan
Bethesda, MD (USA)
(To reply, change example.invalid to com in the address.)

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Carl Navarro: "Re: Why I Am Not Switching to Verizon"
Go to Previous message: Fred Atkinson: "Re: Why I Am Not Switching to Verizon"
May be in reply to: zalek: "Why I Am Not Switching to Verizon"
Next in thread: Carl Navarro: "Re: Why I Am Not Switching to Verizon"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page