this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
885 points (99.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

25864 readers
685 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I don't know if they changes the answer to the question, but it now says name@example is valid.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 34 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It does say it's valid, but also that it's obsolete, and while the RFC does define valid but obsolete specs, there is nothing defining domains without a dot as obsolete, and it is in fact defined in the regular spec, not the obsolete section

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

I see what you mean, I'm with you now.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

It says valid but obsolete, which sounds like a contradiction to me.

This is technically valid but considered obsolete. RFC 822 allowed domains without dots, but RFC 2822 made this obsolete.

Do email suffix not indicate a different domain like .org and .com for websites?