<p dir="ltr">Thanks, Dennis, and thanks, Hamish, my opinion is exactly the same. "Valid" is not equal to "working".<br>
On the other hand, "working" email, especially in new gtld world, is not always the case of "working properly".</p>
<p dir="ltr">Dusan</p>
<p dir="ltr">Poslato sa mog Sony Xperia™ pametnog telefona</p>
<br><br>---- Hamish MacEwan je napisao/la ----<br><br>On 20 January 2016 at 12:35, Tan Tanaka, Dennis <<a href="mailto:dtantanaka@verisign.com">dtantanaka@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Dusan, I'm not sure this is an UA issue. At least, not at face value.<br>><br>> I'm not expert, but I would ask: Is the email '<a href="mailto:me@michele.irish">me@michele.irish</a>' a workable email address?<br><br>This is not even a fine point that needs to be clear, "working" is not<br>the same as "valid."<br><br>It's a matter that's been on my mind since the quick guides were<br>offered for comment and the best part of the Validation document was,<br>in my experience and opinion:<br><br>"1. Don’t validate at all unless it’s required for the operation of<br>the application or service."<br><br>Since the matter is "acceptance" it should be broadly inclusive,<br>"definitely not invalid" the only filter.<br><br>The test Dennis conducted (equivalent to sending an email to the<br>address, the empirical method, by doing) is still inconclusive,<br>"Policy Rejection- Please try later."<br><br>People will accept their own mistakes with more aplomb, than being<br>informed that an address that is working for them, RFC 5322 compliant,<br>is invalid by the login page of a lounge's Wi-Fi capture portal.<br><br>So I would say this is definitely a UA issue, whether the email<br>address in question works or not, it is valid.<br><br><br>Hamish.<br>-- <br><a href="https://www.onename.io/hamishmacewan">https://www.onename.io/hamishmacewan</a><br>