[OpenID] Wiki page: Attempting to document the "Email Address as OpenId" debate.

David Fuelling sappenin at gmail.com
Wed Feb 14 21:05:26 UTC 2007

> -----Original Message-----
> From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net] On
> Behalf Of Claus Färber

> | I'd prefer to call them user at REALM OpenIDs.
> > Seems like anything in the form
> > 'user at domain' would also have an identical root (RFC2822).
> I don't know where this format comes from. RFC 733 gives a somewhat
> vague origin in ARPAnet mail usage.
> It's certainly not RFC 2822 (or 822), which is a rather new standard.

I guess "root" is the wrong term.  I meant to say that any new spec defined
today should use RFC2822 as its baseline when discussing email addresses (or
email in general).

> It's also unclear whether the usage in other protocols imitated the
> email use or whether it was a parallel invention.
> > Is that not the case for Kerberos realms and RADIUS zones?  In other
> words,
> > are these *not* also email addresses?
> | For example, user at EXAMPLE.COM could be a RADIUS login, a Kerberos
> | principal and a Yadis ID/OpenID but not an email address.
> There's no technical reason an identifier using the user at DOMAIN format
> has to be a valid email address.

This depends on how you define "valid".  If by valid you mean "validly
formatted", then I disagree.  If by "valid" you mean "somebody can send an
email message to that address", then you're right.

With respect to OpenId (and my extension proposal in particular)  we need
only worry about formatting.  For example, sappenin at would be a
validly formatted email address in OpenId, but good luck sending me a
message there.  


More information about the general mailing list