Sometime recently Network Solutions seems to have stopped accepting "+" as a valid character in an e-mail address. Yes, I did open a ticket via their customer service people, and was given the reply that I needed to use another e-mail address. Per their web form, the only acceptable addresses are [a-zA-Z-_.]+@[a-zA-Z-_.]+ (no, they don't put it in a regex, but I did for clarity). Evidence suggests some Network Solutions people read this list, but are unlikely to reply to queries such as mine. That's fine, but if one of you could suggest to the people in the right place that there are many valid e-mail addresses not in that form it would be great. In particular I'm trying to use bicknell+whois@ufp.org, which I have used for years. Note to all, they also sent out a recent note that ICANN requires valid contact info for a domain, and if you don't have it they can "unregister" your domain. Well, their web form flags my e-mail as "invalid", even though it works just fine (and it's the address they used to send me the notice). If you use a e-mail that doesn't match the regex above you might want to complain, or change it, or both. A private e-mail from someone at netsol will yeild the ticket number I opened with standard customer service. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Unfortunately I'd have to say NetSol is not alone on this as a vast majority of the sites I've had to enter an email address will not accept a user+detail@domain format... I find it to be quite annoying that I can use the format as it helps with filtering of email and is completely valid according to the current RFCs wrt mail. Regards, Jeremy On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 07:53:15PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Sometime recently Network Solutions seems to have stopped accepting "+" as a valid character in an e-mail address. Yes, I did open a ticket via their customer service people, and was given the reply that I needed to use another e-mail address. Per their web form, the only acceptable addresses are [a-zA-Z-_.]+@[a-zA-Z-_.]+ (no, they don't put it in a regex, but I did for clarity).
Evidence suggests some Network Solutions people read this list, but are unlikely to reply to queries such as mine. That's fine, but if one of you could suggest to the people in the right place that there are many valid e-mail addresses not in that form it would be great. In particular I'm trying to use bicknell+whois@ufp.org, which I have used for years.
Note to all, they also sent out a recent note that ICANN requires valid contact info for a domain, and if you don't have it they can "unregister" your domain. Well, their web form flags my e-mail as "invalid", even though it works just fine (and it's the address they used to send me the notice). If you use a e-mail that doesn't match the regex above you might want to complain, or change it, or both.
A private e-mail from someone at netsol will yeild the ticket number I opened with standard customer service.
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
--On Friday, August 8, 2003 5:56 PM -0700 "Jeremy T. Bouse" <Jeremy.Bouse@UnderGrid.net> wrote:
Unfortunately I'd have to say NetSol is not alone on this as a vast majority of the sites I've had to enter an email address will not accept a user+detail@domain format... I find it to be quite annoying that I can use the format as it helps with filtering of email and is completely valid according to the current RFCs wrt mail.
John Klensin has an internet-draft out that addresses this issue. See section 3 of draft-klensin-name-filters-02.txt. I don't know if this will be any more useful than RFC 2822 when it comes to bashing the clueless over the head, but every bit helps, I guess. I find that when I complain about this sort of thing I have about a 20% success rate in getting the problem fixed. Something I've found to be helpful is to offer the site an ERE I wrote that does (mostly correct) validation of RFC 2822 addresses. If the site is running UNIX they'll usually incorporate the ERE into their validation software. --lyndon
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Evidence suggests some Network Solutions people read this list, but are unlikely to reply to queries such as mine. That's fine, but if one of you could suggest to the people in the right place that there are many valid e-mail addresses not in that form it would be great.
While I'm not with Network Solutions, I'll pass your email on to a clueful person there and report back whatever I hear. Matt -- Matt Larson <mlarson@verisign.com> VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
participants (4)
-
Jeremy T. Bouse -
Leo Bicknell -
Lyndon Nerenberg -
Matt Larson