[support] multiple users with same email address

[Earnie Boyd]

Quoting Greg Knaddison - GVS <Greg at GrowingVentureSolutions.com>:

> On 7/17/07, Earnie Boyd <earnie at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> Quoting Michelle Cox <mcox at charter.net>:
>> > What I do is I have a catch all forwarder on my domain and then I can make
>> > up any email and it forwards to my main email.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, this is the way to do it.  Forget about those silly games with +
>> signs and such.
>
> Aside from adding to your argument's strength, I fail to see anything
> silly or gamish about using a + sign more than using catchall.
>

True, I should have kept this comment silent.  Some of the ideas 
expressed about tracking who sold your address can be useful.  I would 
suggest though that an account be created for each address and use 
pop/imap to fetch the email to your primary account.

> Catchall has the small drawback of drastically increasing the
> dictionary spam to a domain.  I was using catchall and used the system
> you describe - now I'm regretting it because I get so much spam from
> it.  I far wish I had used the user+extension at example.com system.
>

Well, that is the reason I create a DNS entry for a domain address that 
I wouldn't normally receive mail to.  The catchall can be flushed 
easily and I can stop forwarding when I'm not testing.

>> I would even add a DNS entry for dev.sample.com, set up the catch all
>> forwarding email for dev.sample.com only and it becomes easy to have as
>> many email at dev.sample.com you want.
>
> RFC2606 [1] recommends that example.com be used when you are looking
> for an example domain.  Using something else sends traffic and
> linkjuice etc. to either live domains (who may not appreciate it) or
> in this case to domainers who love the extra traffic.  I don't
> begrudge them the traffic, but since I spent some time searching for
> these [2] and replacing them in comments and documentation in Drupal
> core/contrib I'd appreciate others help in using the appropriate
> example for example domains.
>

Quote the RFC

<quote>
   To safely satisfy these needs, four domain names are reserved as
   listed and described below.

                   .test
                .example
                .invalid
              .localhost

      ".test" is recommended for use in testing of current or new DNS
      related code.

      ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples.

      ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
      names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a
      glance are invalid.

      The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in
      host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the
      loop back IP address and is reserved for such use.  Any other use
      would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.
</quote>

But I find http://test.com and http://invalid.com pulls up live.  
http://sample.com pulls to a parked page as well.  http://example.com 
brings a text page that references the RFC.  So based on actual 
results, example.com and localhost.com are the only items of the RFC 
that remain true.  Sample and example are synonymous, 
http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_/sample.html, so I usually forget 
which to use.

Earnie -- http://for-my-kids.com/