I'm not surprised. There are plenty of programs (especially f*cking web
forms) which are under the misconception that "+" is not a valid character
in an email address. Why shouldn't "_" enjoy the fun.
In fact, "_" is not valid in domain names, so it should never appear in
the part to the right of the "@". It's perfectly valid in the part to the
right of the "@".
The following characters are all valid in email addresses:
all 52 upper and lower-case alphabets
all digits
any of these: ! # $ % & ' * + - / = ? ^ _ ` { | } ~
. is also permitted if it is not the first or last character
using quoted strings, anything else except for NUL, CR, and LF
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
> In fact, "_" is not valid in domain names, so it should never appear
> in the part to the right of the "@". It's perfectly valid in the
> part to the right of the "@".
One presumes 's/right/left/2'
MC> I'm not surprised. There are plenty of programs (especially f*cking web
MC> forms) which are under the misconception that "+" is not a valid character
MC> in an email address. Why shouldn't "_" enjoy the fun.
MC>
The usual "you have entered an invalid email address" telling off is very
irritating but Amex seem to have a new way of not accepting myname+amex@,
viz.
"WE'RE SORRY...
Unfortunately our system does not seem to be working at the moment, please
try again later.
We are sorry for any trouble this has caused you."
--
Alan
( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned.
There is also a password autoresponder but, unless this a very
old message, a "tuna" will swim right through. )
See for instance RFC 3598
The hyphen "-" is also often used in this manner.
The symptom reported of mail addressed to
being delivered to
would be consistent with yahoo.com treating "_" as a subaddressing separator.
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University