Subject:
|
Re: valid email addresses
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:37:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
238 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 02:52:48PM +0000, Jason Spears wrote:
> So is there something I should do?
I didn't mean to specifically point you out, Jason - if you want to
change your registration, I'm sure Larry would be happy to help though.
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:17:09PM +0000, 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.
Actually, it was saying anything with a '@' followed somewhere by a '.'.
Which isn't a real check (use Email::Valid or something like that), but
it's a quick hack.
> 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)
I was under the impression that Todd was the only one that can actually
change the code, so I figured that as long as the implementation was
readable by him, that should suffice? I do appriciate you calling me
elitist, though.
> 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.
Thanks!
From: "Larry Pieniazek" <larry.@ascentialsoftwareDOTcom.pair.com (mylastname)>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 03:20:49PM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
Coudl there? I can't think of one - and standards are good for the
soul! Especially since other programs that are trying to use the data
you provite might rely on them. For instance, to generate the news RSS
feed, I had to hack away at the "From" address provided by lugnet,
because when I took it at face value, it invalidated the feed.
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
