Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!nuzba.szn.dk!pnx.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: Email Vali8dation Problem
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:37:42 -0700
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <amfqn3Fj7guU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <amb6f9Fhvk3U1@mid.individual.net> <JqhEReJ0KZARFws0@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>
X-Trace: individual.net WcNieeKGyTbtKVAO8emPKwIihQVFLUBMxMmysK3LZUZ49FGxVUHczIWUjui7Myw+2S
Cancel-Lock: sha1:znvd54Zk1tXxRqUQTWSSVAdUJGw=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:18250

Dr JR said


> There is little point in trying to validate the format of an E-address
> (except for those writing E-mail software) when there is no possibility
> of writing code that will report
>        reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk    as good and
>        reply1300@merlyn.denom.co.uk    as probably no good
>
> Of those, the first should, IIRC, apparently be delivered, but will
> bounce after 30 days (unless in the meanwhile I change what that address
> does), while the second is to an address which (at this instant) does
> not exist.
>
> Also, if you "validate" against what you apparently think the format
> should be, you will reject valid (admittedly uncommon) types of address
> [e.g. designed to work, but not to be believed by address harvesters].
> Before attempting a validator, you should find, read, and understand the
> latest applicable RFC for E-addresses.
>
> It should be useful, though, to check that the string provided might
> possibly an E-address - users sometimes may get their field order wrong
> and insert their snail-mail address or telephone number instead.
>
> A valid address will contain at least one character, followed by @,
> followed by at least one character, followed by a dot, and ending with
> at least two alphabetic characters (though the RFC itself may be more
> (or less) lenient) - and it will not end in ".invalid" or, IIRC & in
> practice, "example.com".


This is discouraging :(

-Mel