On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 08:17 AM, Dave Sergeant wrote:
It all comes down to the decision by Mark to use + as the onlySorry; I think that is unfair. If + is supposed to be acceptable character under the terms of RFC 2821 then using it was a perfectly reasonable decision. The fact that a particular combination of (apparently any) email client, mail provider (BT) and "traffic handler" corrupts addresses with + in them does not negate Mark's original decision.
I have in the non - recent past sent messages to a +owner address without mishap, but clearly I have no idea about what might be responsible for the change in behaviour. I still have some hope that Peter Martinez' enquiry via "BT Community" might bear fruit, although a little of that hope is starting to fade. If other mail service providers allow + addresses to work uncorrupted, then so should BT (etc) under all circumstances.
Having said that I agree that most subscribers are "use by email client" and expecting them to use their mail provider's web UI is probably unrealistic.
Mark; are you in any position whereby you could chase the errant provider(s) from your perspective?