[UA-discuss] ODG: Re: UA issue

[Dusan Stojicevic]

Thanks, Dennis, and thanks, Hamish, my opinion is exactly the same. "Valid" is not equal to "working".
On the other hand, "working" email, especially in new gtld world, is not always the case of "working properly".

Dusan

Poslato sa mog Sony Xperia™ pametnog telefona

---- Hamish MacEwan je napisao/la ----

>On 20 January 2016 at 12:35, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <dtantanaka at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>> Dusan, I'm not sure this is an UA issue. At least, not at face value.
>>
>> I'm not expert, but I would ask: Is the email 'me at michele.irish' a workable email address?
>
>This is not even a fine point that needs to be clear, "working" is not
>the same as "valid."
>
>It's a matter that's been on my mind since the quick guides were
>offered for comment and the best part of the Validation document was,
>in my experience and opinion:
>
>"1. Don’t validate at all unless it’s required for the operation of
>the application or service."
>
>Since the matter is "acceptance" it should be broadly inclusive,
>"definitely not invalid" the only filter.
>
>The test Dennis conducted (equivalent to sending an email to the
>address, the empirical method, by doing) is still inconclusive,
>"Policy Rejection- Please try later."
>
>People will accept their own mistakes with more aplomb, than being
>informed that an address that is working for them, RFC 5322 compliant,
>is invalid by the login page of a lounge's Wi-Fi capture portal.
>
>So I would say this is definitely a UA issue, whether the email
>address in question works or not, it is valid.
>
>
>Hamish.
>-- 
>https://www.onename.io/hamishmacewan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20160120/6b258ec3/attachment.html>