[support] multiple users with same email address

[Kitt Hodsden]

Quoting Earnie Boyd <earnie at users.sourceforge.net>:

> 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.

This assumes, also that you have access to play with your domain's mail setup. 
The original post included a note that specifically mentioned a limited set of
email addresses availble for testing.  That implies to me (or rather, I
inferred) that there isn't access to just add another subdomain or a large
number of accounts.

> > 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.

See comment above.  Not everyone has access to a throwaway domain or subdomain
for testing.

And setting up a slew of accounts to forward to one account seems like a lot of
unnecessary work when compared to user+account at gmail.com

BTW, not all MTAs accept the +anything format (qmail, for example, doesn't by
default), so test first.

> >> 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.

Be sure localhost is properly configured.  localhost.com used to be a domain
that had a web and email access. 

http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6999

I recommend using only example.* for testing TLD.

Kitt.