Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.internetdienste.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <4132599.O2IUq2hl1o@PointedEars.de>
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <usenet@PointedEars.de>
Organization: PointedEars Software (PES)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:42:11 +0200
User-Agent: KNode/4.8.5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&.<b';Md8`dH6iqhT)6C^.Px|[=M@7=Ik[_w<%n1Up"LPQNu2m8|L!/3iby{-]A+#YE}Kl{Cw$\U!kD%K}\2jz"QQP6Uqr],./"?;=4v
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAGFBMVEXTxa4RFk5dUWANED8PFEfy7+MGBiW+n3ZNF/QuAAACaElEQVQ4jVXUwVOcMBQG8Dc7Rc4PUntdWV2uxjDpGaGeozOp1woar4jd5t/v9wLstMwsA/ntlxdCAgUc1hjTc9/JCZfGoo3wG3HdmdAWrIJRHe7GM/TmpY5VFefuVcAkkPbLIaN8rmPmjloyZxgyR3GuJ4K0AGtJ2htz8o7yqikm759fldQXaMpbDzjKAG+8v+AugVTOPO5DOjLvGtUYQwh0CPjnVMyGd+8/GfUB5nLKJDD2aLDh5HYyMDJGDwQIo2ZmZcKbowNmAdB/AzyFhrmF2MHRb0QJJfaAnwGB6orZhoykLzJtGwF/xpYxI1dswomiUj3gTuAIqCn/4C7cULwGNBtwMTk3Y4LfKB5YUaOKBKYtpplm7u0vip8tU1NWWyI/7XdcSuIDoMt6rVHMWT0DbjHPGqDqZVSa6zleLcUTcIKLoMv3ueJluALtAo9B302zPPlrtiVScRdCjXvVh3e3JpYa/jjkuC9N+LrBMlz/eAN4eQijX2EdLo6c5tGGHwLyHFtXk89dDGHwCVhG9T0S/j55AhRZgkMCmUQXJ49TnS1wnQDvw0eAh9ICeMmEFbCnPMFzjAvsWoEWEFdYEx+S0MoUZ1gT1wId8+AF3Bl2OoEu906AUHx5VLw/gXYg/x84loOah/2UYNrgiwSwGO7RfUzVBbx/kgpckumGOi6QirtD6gkLTitbnxNol47S2jVc2vsN5kPqaAHT8uUdAJM4v/DanjYOwmUjWznGfwB7sGtAtor5BgofDuzaRj4kSQAqDakTsKORa3Q3xKi3gE1fhl71KRMqrdZ2AWNNg/YOhQyrVBnb+i+nEg4bsDA+egAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
Subject: Re: Restrict a domain on Email Validation
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
References: <9e42c475-f0f4-4822-98d4-0291745f3447@googlegroups.com> <7867864.kBbL0iy7tU@PointedEars.de> <kk70s5$rdc$1@news.albasani.net> <2615387.eNcf81pqbo@PointedEars.de> <kk743r$2vr$1@news.albasani.net> <3115834.VOAWd18DUa@PointedEars.de> <kk79oi$f7q$1@news.albasani.net> <1934436.yJr0pKV1Qq@PointedEars.de> <kk7d5p$lfj$1@news.albasani.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 59
NNTP-Posting-Date: 12 Apr 2013 00:42:22 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 74575f30.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: DXC=_NB5;7gN5bUaAeROF2PWMQMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[a`:6Ko^Zg`\DZm8W4\YJN\b@mF9jNikdUIQbgJMhLo0W`Y0PehRO8M\
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:19239

Stefan Weiss wrote:

> On 2013-04-11 23:31, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Stefan Weiss wrote:
>>> So it doesn't solve the problem as stated:
>>> 
>>> | block all email addresses from @forbidden.*
>>> | (Where * can be org, com. co.uk, se ...... etc)
>>> 
>>> forbidden.planet.example.com is clearly a false positive.
>> 
>> Your logic is flawed.  “...... etc” makes it clear that *any* domain name
>> whose bottom level is named “forbidden” is to be rejected, including
>> forbidden.planet.example.com.
> 
> That's a *very* generous interpretation of "etc".

You must be kidding.  That (anything of the same sort) is the very meaning 
of ”etc.” – et cetera – and so on.  I do not think the program (or problem) 
specification could be more clear in that respect: “*” is used as a 
placeholder here; it is defined by examples afterwards, where the list of 
examples is _not_ exhaustive, due to “etc.”  Much like saying “Even numbers, 
like 2, 4, 6, etc.” by definition includes 42.
 
> If that's indeed how you read it, the whole problem becomes trivial.
> In that case, I wonder why you would prefer a regular expression to
> indexOf().

Because – again – indexOf() is _not_ equivalent.

>>> To be clear, for the purpose of testing if the domain name
>>> part "forbidden" follows the @-sign,
>>> 
>>>    if (!(/original-regex/.test(str) && !/your-regex/.test(str)))
>>> 
>>> is equivalent to
>>> 
>>>    if (!(/original-regex/.test(str) && str.indexOf("@forbidden.") < 0))
>>> 
>>> or, with the negated parenthesized expression resolved,
>>> 
>>>    if (!/original-regex/.test(str) || str.indexOf("@forbidden.") > -1)
>> 
>> No, it is not.  Your logic is flawed.
> 
> Saying "no" and "your logic is flawed" means nothing (especially coming
> from you). If you find anything to disprove the statement, let me know;
> until then I'll just consider you too stubborn to admit a mistake.

No, this is not how a proper discussion works.  You are to prove your 
argument first.  You will see then that you are wrong.

HTH

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.