you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 51 points 1 year ago (5 children)

13/21 here. Mostly got hung up on several "this was valid in earlier RFC, and later removed" kind of situations. There are several where I picked the correct answer, but where I know many websites that won't accept it as valid, and that's not even the more esoteric ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah I feel like the correct answer for anything obsoleted by a more recent RFC should be "Invalid".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    But they will work, and according to the spec, you have to build your system so that it can handle those cases. Obsolete doesn't mean incorrect or invalid, just a "you shouldn't do this any more".

    Obsolete Syntax
    Earlier versions of this standard allowed for different (usually more liberal) syntax than is allowed in this version. Also, there have been syntactic elements used in messages on the Internet whose interpretation have never been documented. Though some of these syntactic forms MUST NOT be generated according to the grammar in section 3, they MUST be accepted and parsed by a conformant receiver.

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2822#section-4

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Some of those "obsolete" things are outright blocked for specific reasons. For example, routing addresses through multiple servers. It was abused by spammers, so it's almost always denied these days.

    Looks like this:

    <@foo.example.com@bar.example.com:123@example.com>
    
  • source
  • parent