1*atext meaning at least 1 alphanumeric character, followed by *("." 1*atext) meaning at least 0 "." 1*atext
If tomorrow, google decided to use its google top-level domain as an email domain, it would be perfectly valid, as could any other company owning top-level domains
Google even owns a gmail TLD so I wouldn’t even be surprised if they decided to use it
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
Question 5 is incorrect,
name@exampleis a fully valid email address, even after RFC 2822The spec of RFC 2822 defines an address (3.4.1) as:
local- part "@" domaindomainis defined (3.4.1) as:domain = dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domaindot-atomis defined (3.2.4) as:dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS] dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)1*atextmeaning at least 1 alphanumeric character, followed by*("." 1*atext)meaning at least 0"." 1*atextIf tomorrow, google decided to use its
googletop-level domain as an email domain, it would be perfectly valid, as could any other company owning top-level domainsGoogle even owns a
gmailTLD so I wouldn’t even be surprised if they decided to use itI didn’t understand this one. How do you have a no dot domain? Like you need to distinguish from example.com or example.wtf
Edit: do you mean if you own
.googleyou can have youremail@googleaddress?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?