I was on the application for the .name top level domain back in 2000 and then there was a reasonable excuse for that - we were in the first new batch of TLDs. We had to contact a lot of site owners to try to smooth the path. But given the number of new TLDs since, you'd think people would've learnt.
Tradeoff: Failing to accept a limited number of rarer domain. Vs. all the errors caused by idiots who can't spell mgail.com, or gmail.cmo, or gmali.com, gmail.kom, or whatever the heck that thing is.
Excluding people from services because you can't be bothered to handle their perfectly correct and validated email address is actually a form of discrimination.
My pet hate is my bank refusing to email me bank statement notifications to mail@mydomain.com ("not a personal address"), yet their password validation and marketing emails get through quite OK. Somehow they seem incapable of acknowledging that one department of the bank has made a technical decision in conflict with other departments...
Is it discrimination if you decide to switch to custom power outlets in your house and then you complain that local hardware stores don't provide compatible parts?
> Excluding people from services because you can't be bothered to ...
Yes. But like most forms of discrimination, it's probably 100% legal. Same as Chuck's Pizza Parlor refusing to deliver outside an X mile radius, and 1st National Bank refusing to use the full legal name of anyone who's name exceeds the size of their DB's 'CustomerName' field.
True. Vote your wallet as you will. Beyond that - discretion is the better part of valor, the low-level employees you can easily complain to are very unlikely to have any say in the policy, and Chuck is free to ask you to drive 40-mile pizza deliveries for the same pay and mileage as he gives at his 10-mile limit.
