- 78comments
- 165comments
- 26comments
- 212comments
- —discuss
- 54comments
- 10comments
- 40comments
- 233comments
- 70comments
- 234comments
- 3comments
- 13comments
- 49comments
- 27comments
- —discuss
- 14comments
- 160comments
- 19comments
- 133comments
- 172comments
- 60comments
- 88comments
- 12comments
- 259comments
- —discuss
- 119comments
- 25comments
- 15comments
- 16comments
Now, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.3.1.1 states that
The maximum total length of a user name or other local-part is 64 octets.
which the addresses violate. I wouldn't really care, except that it's causing me issues.
Anyway, I don't pay for the service, so I understand I can't demand anything of them as complex as actually complying with RFCs. But I reached out to their support, letting them know the problem I had with screenshots, and also linking to the RFC. I went back and forth a few times, but got nothing more than
"... there are restrictions that keep us from shortening the forwarding address, and reducing the length would take away some of the core functions of masked emails."
Is there anything else I can do to convince them? Or should I drop the issue?
Get a browser plugin (like Styler for Chrome) that lets you add custom CSS/JS to a page. Then write a line or two of JS to fix the problem yourself.