Subject:
|
Re: valid email addresses
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:17:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
235 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Jason Spears wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> > Can we fix the registration form for the newsgroups to require that the
> > email address provided is actually valid, as far as the RFC goes? At
> > the very least, require that it will match /.*@.*\..*/?
Dan: You might want to decode that regular expression into english for those not
regexp literate, since you're publicly asking for a change. I THINK it means at
least one @ and at least one "." that is at least one character after the at
sign, with at least one character after that, but I'm guessing (based on some
offline about this that Todd and I had a few days ago) since I don't feel like
being sure.
It's YOU that wants the change, Dan, so you should speak in English. Not
everyone is as smart as you. (or regexp literate, not necessarily the same thing
but I digress) Speaking regexp might be perceived by some as a bit elitist.
(Todd of course knows what it means but you posted publicly, presumably inviting
comment)
> > The reason is
> > that SMTP breaks otherwise - see below. The email address Jason is
> > posting with is "spielboy.at.gmail.dot.com" - which is great - except
> > that qmail on pair thinks it's a local address, and adds the
> > @qs483.pair.com to it.
> >
> > I've seen such errors before, and it's really confusing. In many cases,
> > the "From" actually shows as "LUGNET Server" for these emails!
>
> So is there something I should do?
Jason:
*Should* do is an arguable point... (probably yes, but it's debatable) ...
*Could* do? Yes.
You can create a new email registration (you can have as many as you wish in the
system) that contains an at sign and at least one period to the right of the at
sign, embedded between at least one char on each side, if you want to, as a
kindness to the mail form LUGNET users.
Note that the one I use myself (you can see it on this post) is, I believe,
broken according to that RFC, as it lacks at least one dot to the right. I'll
probably fix it when I get a chance.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: valid email addresses
|
| (...) Oh, one other point. The approval of these is a manual process. Some of the problematic ones (in particular Jason's current one) were approved by me before I knew about this issue. I'm not sure I agree that the interface should force (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
