ac via Talk wrote on 2025-08-25 23:28:
So, to test these guys, I just said "valid"
And it tells me:
easy@example.com ❌ This is valid. No tricks here, just easing you into it.
F*cking idiots.
Really?
The email address is valid in it's format but invalid in terms of RFC is the correct answer.
Again, it's poor form to publish existing or potentially existing email addresses or phone numbers.
So, it looks like they find an ambigious reason to push their POV which is that whoever are jumping through their hoops is just 'wrong'
Whahahaha, WE are all idiots for falling for this bullshit.
Speak for yourself. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.html
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
RFC 2606 - Reserved Top Level DNS Names - June 1999
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.html#section-3
3. Reserved Example Second Level Domain Names
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also currently has the following second level domain names reserved which can be used as examples.
example.com example.net example.org
So, until 1999 when RFC2606 came out, there was no official guidance on it.
hth
Not really. It's been mentioned already (although minus the link to RFC2606) and is wrong.