New type of email address

I have wondered if I could have a shorter email address. Something like x@e.gg is pretty short, but what of say e@gg ?

My understanding is that the guy running gg actually tried it, and found it did not work. Partly down to email clients, but annoyingly, whilst a top level domain can have an MX record, it is actually part of the RFC that disallows this.

RFC2822 makes domain :-
 Domain = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain)) / address-literal

But the older RFC822 made it :-
 domain = sub-domain *("." sub-domain)

So it used to allow a domain with no dots in it, but now requires dots.

Shame, especially for many of those applying for new TLDs as they cannot have things like info@google as an email address.

Update: See comments as it seems I missed something and such email addresses are valid, just unlikely to work.


  1. Would it work if you just stuck a trailing period on the end, i.e. an 'empty' final domain?

    1. No, a trailing '.' is not permitted by the RFCs - see the ABNF definition above or check RFC5322 3.4.1.

  2. Not sure how you read the RFC, but RFC 5322 (and 2822 which it supersedes) both have:

    atext = ALPHA / DIGIT / ...
    dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)
    dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]
    domain = dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domain

    dot-atom-text isn't '1*atext 1*("." 1*atext)' in either.

    Note also that RFC5321 specifically mentions this case:

    2.3.5. Domain Names

    A domain name (or often just a "domain") consists of one or more
    components, separated by dots if more than one appears. In the case
    of a top-level domain used by itself in an email address, a single
    string is used without any dots.

    I think it's more likely that MTAs tend to rewrite unqualified addresses into their own domain, or assume they are a local host. No '.' definitely looks far more like a hostname than a FQDN. It was common practise a few years ago to assume no '.' meant a local hostname, but these days seems to have fallen out of use a bit, both with centralised e-mail systems and as people make so much use of address books as they have so many contacts. Shortening addresses is just not needed so much.

    It's also a consequence of the spam battle - localpart@hostname is so uncommon, and occurs in spam, so it's likely to get blocked.

    The biggest problem is probably web page e-mail address verifiers. Most of them are horribly broken, and assume something much simpler than the RFCs actually allow (spaces in a local part, for instance - there's nothing syntactically wrong with "The Reverend"@gg, or even !@gg).

    So although it sounds like a nice idea for a short address, it's likely to have so many issues you'd be unable to use it most of the time.

    1. Very comprehensive reply, thanks. I obviously missed something there... I was copy/pasting from the RFCs.


Comments are moderated purely to filter out obvious spam, but it means they may not show immediately.


There are lots of ways to debug stuff, but at the end of the day it is all a bit of a detective story. Looking for clues, testing an hypothe...