Skip to content

Email syntax should be based on RFC 5321 (not RFC 5322) #852

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
gene-hightower opened this issue Feb 8, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #861
Closed

Email syntax should be based on RFC 5321 (not RFC 5322) #852

gene-hightower opened this issue Feb 8, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #861
Labels
clarification Items that need to be clarified in the specification validation

Comments

@gene-hightower
Copy link

Email Addresses should be based on the protocol specification RFC 5321, not the message format defined by RFC 5322.

Instead of "email: As defined by RFC 5322, section 3.4.1" I suggest "Mailbox: As defined by RFC 5321, section 4.1.2."

The later "idn-email: As defined by RFC 6531" makes clear that I think this is what was intended in the first place since RFC 6531 extends the SMTP protocol as defined by RFC 5321, not the message format defined by RFC 5322.

The note that ``all strings valid against the "email" attribute are also valid against the "idn-email" attribute'' only makes sense if the email attribute where based on 5321 in the first place.

The Mailbox element as defined by 5321 is what most people understand as an "email address" not the syntax defined for the message format which may include comments and white space.

@Relequestual
Copy link
Member

Good spot! Thanks!

@gregsdennis gregsdennis moved this from Closed to Merged in Proposal: `format` update Jul 17, 2024
@gregsdennis gregsdennis added clarification Items that need to be clarified in the specification and removed Type: Maintenance labels Jul 17, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
clarification Items that need to be clarified in the specification validation
Projects
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants