It does say it’s valid, but also that it’s obsolete, and while the RFC does define valid but obsolete specs, there is nothing defining domains without a dot as obsolete, and it is in fact defined in the regular spec, not the obsolete section
Question 5 is incorrect, name@example is a fully valid email address, even after RFC 2822
The spec of RFC 2822 defines an address (3.4.1) as:
local-part "@" domain
domain is defined (3.4.1) as:
domain = dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domain
dot-atom is defined (3.2.4) as:
dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]
dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)
1 meaning at least 1 alphanumeric character, followed by *("." 1*atext) meaning at least 0 "." 1*atext
If tomorrow, google decided to use its google top-level domain as an email domain, it would be perfectly valid, as could any other company owning top-level domains
Google even owns a gmail TLD so I wouldn’t even be surprised if they decided to use it
What sucks about Anubis?