Subject:
|
Re: valid email addresses
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:20:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3577 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
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
disapproval necessarily, there may be a valid reason for using the email encoded
that way.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: valid email addresses
|
| (...) 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, (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jul-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
