What special characters are allowed in email aliases?

What special characters are allowed in email aliases?
What is the maximum number of characters allowed?
Are there any other restrictions or rules?
--
Chris

"Chris" <nospam@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:xzdKKLBqfqYHFwjS@[127.0.0.1]...
> What special characters are allowed in email aliases?
> What is the maximum number of characters allowed?
> Are there any other restrictions or rules?

Pretty much covers it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address

"Gizmo." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9ny8j.215927$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Chris" <nospam@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> news:xzdKKLBqfqYHFwjS@[127.0.0.1]...
>> What special characters are allowed in email aliases?
>> What is the maximum number of characters allowed?
>> Are there any other restrictions or rules?
>
> Pretty much covers it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address
>
>

I did find that a name in the format (E-Mail Removed) was not always
acceptable when entered into a web site as just one letter was considered to
short

--
Michael Chare

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:26:58 UTC, "Michael Chare"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Gizmo." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:9ny8j.215927$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Chris" <nospam@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> > news:xzdKKLBqfqYHFwjS@[127.0.0.1]...
> >> What special characters are allowed in email aliases?
> >> What is the maximum number of characters allowed?
> >> Are there any other restrictions or rules?
> >
> > Pretty much covers it:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address

But Wikipedia is far from definitive (on any subject).

> I did find that a name in the format (E-Mail Removed) was not always
> acceptable when entered into a web site as just one letter was considered to
> short

Then the website is faulty. The definitive information is:

atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / ; Any character except controls,
"!" / "#" / ; SP, and specials.
"$" / "%" / ; Used for atoms
"&" / "'" /
"*" / "+" /
"-" / "/" /
"=" / "?" /
"^" / "_" /
"`" / "{" /
"|" / "}" /
"~"

(an extract from RFC 2822, the document that actually DEFINES these
things). That's in section 3.2.4, with other useful stuff in section
3.4. It says that the characters abive are valid, and just one is OK.

Shortest email address I've seen is of the form:

'@x.yy (x and y changed to protect the address
owner)


--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

"Bob Eager" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:26:58 UTC, "Michael Chare"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Gizmo." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:9ny8j.215927$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >
>> > "Chris" <nospam@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>> > news:xzdKKLBqfqYHFwjS@[127.0.0.1]...
>> >> What special characters are allowed in email aliases?
>> >> What is the maximum number of characters allowed?
>> >> Are there any other restrictions or rules?
>> >
>> > Pretty much covers it:
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address
>
> But Wikipedia is far from definitive (on any subject).

Agreed Bob.
But I kinda thought that if they OP wanted the basic information then
wikipedia is the "best" place to start. The RFC "can" be a little heavy
going on the grey matter, epecially for a newbie ;o)

In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bob Eager <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> I did find that a name in the format (E-Mail Removed) was not always
>> acceptable when entered into a web site as just one letter was
>> considered to short

>Then the website is faulty.

Websites don't have to comply with any RFC when choosing what email
addresses to accept. They may find it more useful to filter out
unlikely addresses even at the expense of rejecting some valid ones.

-- Richard
--
:wq

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:11:19 UTC, (E-Mail Removed) (Richard
Tobin) wrote:

> In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Bob Eager <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >> I did find that a name in the format (E-Mail Removed) was not always
> >> acceptable when entered into a web site as just one letter was
> >> considered to short
>
> >Then the website is faulty.
>
> Websites don't have to comply with any RFC when choosing what email
> addresses to accept. They may find it more useful to filter out
> unlikely addresses even at the expense of rejecting some valid ones.

That's their prerogative. I still maintain it's faulty!

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

On 21 Dec 2007 10:21:06 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:11:19 UTC, (E-Mail Removed) (Richard
> Tobin) wrote:
>
>> In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> Bob Eager <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >> I did find that a name in the format (E-Mail Removed) was not always
>> >> acceptable when entered into a web site as just one letter was
>> >> considered to short
>>
>> >Then the website is faulty.
>>
>> Websites don't have to comply with any RFC when choosing what email
>> addresses to accept. They may find it more useful to filter out
>> unlikely addresses even at the expense of rejecting some valid ones.
>
> That's their prerogative. I still maintain it's faulty!
>
But it only counts as faulty if that was not the website's intention.
I occasionally get websites that reject one of my disposable email
addresses as being "invalid". It's perfectly valid, but their software
won't allow submission of addresses that no-one will ever read.

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:49:52 UTC, Peter Lynch <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 21 Dec 2007 10:21:06 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:11:19 UTC, (E-Mail Removed) (Richard
> > Tobin) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> Bob Eager <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I did find that a name in the format (E-Mail Removed) was not always
> >> >> acceptable when entered into a web site as just one letter was
> >> >> considered to short
> >>
> >> >Then the website is faulty.
> >>
> >> Websites don't have to comply with any RFC when choosing what email
> >> addresses to accept. They may find it more useful to filter out
> >> unlikely addresses even at the expense of rejecting some valid ones.
> >
> > That's their prerogative. I still maintain it's faulty!
> >
> But it only counts as faulty if that was not the website's intention.
> I occasionally get websites that reject one of my disposable email
> addresses as being "invalid". It's perfectly valid, but their software
> won't allow submission of addresses that no-one will ever read.

Perhaps. But the example of a single letter address above
((E-Mail Removed)) hardly fits that bill. It's hardly likely to be a
throwaway address, is it?

Just seems bad (faulty) programming to me.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

Bob Eager wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:49:52 UTC, Peter Lynch <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 21 Dec 2007 10:21:06 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:11:19 UTC, (E-Mail Removed) (Richard
>>> Tobin) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>>> Bob Eager <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I did find that a name in the format (E-Mail Removed) was not always
>>>>>> acceptable when entered into a web site as just one letter was
>>>>>> considered to short
>>>>> Then the website is faulty.
>>>> Websites don't have to comply with any RFC when choosing what email
>>>> addresses to accept. They may find it more useful to filter out
>>>> unlikely addresses even at the expense of rejecting some valid ones.
>>> That's their prerogative. I still maintain it's faulty!
>>>
>> But it only counts as faulty if that was not the website's intention.
>> I occasionally get websites that reject one of my disposable email
>> addresses as being "invalid". It's perfectly valid, but their software
>> won't allow submission of addresses that no-one will ever read.
>
> Perhaps. But the example of a single letter address above
> ((E-Mail Removed)) hardly fits that bill. It's hardly likely to be a
> throwaway address, is it?
>
> Just seems bad (faulty) programming to me.
>
Count your lucky stars that you never had to deal with addresses like
minty!jedi-knight!poohbear!alabataris!(E-Mail Removed)

There were even worse formats that I forget now.

All covered in various RFCS and suchlike. Very few of which were
accurately and strictly adhered to.

I am pretty sure that you should only have alphanumerics, the period,
hyphen and underscore in a name. MOST mail system's will also deal
kindly to an apostrophy, so Mike.O'(E-Mail Removed) should work..

Derfinitelty avoid inverted commas (double quotes") exclamation marks!
(UUCP style addresseing), commas (addressee separation mark) and %
character (source route addressing). I am pretty sure an asterisk will
bugger up many mailers, and although I cant see why it won't work, I
would not use a dollar or pound sign or a caret or an ampersand. That
one MAY work tho.

ISTR a colon and semi-colon are alos character with special meaning..not
sure.


MOST of the extended character set works however. It used to be '7 bit
only' but I think a later RFC allowed 8 bit characters..too many swedes
using the net by then etc etc.

In general case is preserved, but is not sensitive..so fred Fred and
freD will all go to the same user.

On the right hand side of the @ sign, I think you have to be 7 bit
clean, and no specials at all apart from '-' and '_' There is some
issue about all number adress 123.com is invalid IIRC. Confused with
actual numeric IP addresses. But 123abc.com is now legal or is it
abc123.com ? 3com got it changed IIRC.