Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #11163 > unrolled thread

testing email deliverability...

Started byThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
First post2014-06-05 01:48 +0100
Last post2014-07-18 03:45 -0700
Articles 8 on this page of 48 — 19 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  testing email deliverability... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-05 01:48 +0100
    Re: testing email deliverability... Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-06-04 18:40 -0700
      Re: testing email deliverability... Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-06-05 02:05 +0000
        Re: testing email deliverability... Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-06-04 19:17 -0700
      Re: testing email deliverability... Rahul <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-05 07:11 +0000
      Re: testing email deliverability... Rahul <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-05 11:08 +0000
        Re: testing email deliverability... Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-06-14 11:53 +0200
          Re: testing email deliverability... Rahul <nospam@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-14 18:34 +0000
            Re: testing email deliverability... Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-06-15 08:54 +0200
    Re: testing email deliverability... "Tony Marston" <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-05 03:47 +0100
      Re: testing email deliverability... Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2014-06-05 04:53 +0000
        Re: testing email deliverability... Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2014-06-05 09:13 +0100
          Re: testing email deliverability... Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-06-05 08:05 -0700
            Re: testing email deliverability... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-05 16:21 +0100
            Re: testing email deliverability... Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-06-05 11:27 -0400
            Re: testing email deliverability... Mike McGinn <mikemcginn@mcginnweb.net> - 2014-06-05 16:31 +0000
              Re: testing email deliverability... "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet3@hjp.at> - 2014-06-05 21:15 +0200
        Re: testing email deliverability... Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2014-06-09 11:30 +0200
          Re: testing email deliverability... Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2014-06-09 23:08 +0000
            Re: testing email deliverability... Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2014-06-10 11:08 +0200
    Re: testing email deliverability... Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2014-06-04 22:04 -0500
      Re: testing email deliverability... Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-06-04 23:27 -0400
      Re: testing email deliverability... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-05 05:37 +0100
        Re: testing email deliverability... Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-06-04 21:55 -0700
          Re: testing email deliverability... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-05 06:17 +0100
        Re: testing email deliverability... Chuck Anderson <cycletourist@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-05 21:36 -0600
          Re: testing email deliverability... Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-06-06 09:41 -0400
            Re: testing email deliverability... Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 14:37 +0000
              Re: testing email deliverability... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-06 16:46 +0100
                Re: testing email deliverability... Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-06-06 10:39 -0700
                  Re: testing email deliverability... Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-06-06 14:22 -0400
                  Re: testing email deliverability... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-06 20:54 +0100
                    Re: testing email deliverability... Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-06-06 13:22 -0700
                    Re: testing email deliverability... Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2014-06-06 21:55 +0000
                      Re: testing email deliverability... Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2014-06-09 13:56 +0100
                    Re: testing email deliverability... Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2014-06-14 11:55 +0200
    Re: testing email deliverability... Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-06-04 23:05 -0400
    Re: testing email deliverability... "AvdB" <nomail@example.invalid> - 2014-06-05 12:59 +0200
      Re: testing email deliverability... The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-06-05 13:51 +0100
    Re: testing email deliverability... Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-05 18:39 +0000
      Re: testing email deliverability... Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2014-06-05 20:46 +0000
        Re: testing email deliverability... Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2014-06-05 14:41 -0700
          Re: testing email deliverability... Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2014-06-06 22:26 +0000
        Re: testing email deliverability... Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-05 22:21 +0000
    Re: testing email deliverability... James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2014-06-05 13:14 -0700
    Re: testing email deliverability... Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2014-06-06 14:11 +0200
    Re: testing email deliverability... Chris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk> - 2014-06-09 13:53 +0100
    Re: testing email deliverability... don.schueler@gmail.com - 2014-07-18 03:45 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#11187

FromEli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com>
Date2014-06-05 20:46 +0000
Message-ID<eli$1406051641@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
In reply to#11184
In comp.lang.php, Adrienne Boswell  <arbpen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote
>> what I want is a function like
>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
> So, you could put something on your form like:
> 
> "Please use a valid email address. Your issue will not be addressed if
> our email to you is returned."

If anyone believed that, Usenet would have been gone long ago.
How many people post with valid email addresses? Certainly not
Mr Ineptocracy.

Elijah
------
$ dict natural
[snip]
5 definitions found

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:
[snip]
     8. Of or pertaining to the lower or animal nature, as
        contrasted with the higher or moral powers, or that which
        is spiritual; being in a state of nature; unregenerate.
        [1913 Webster]
  
              The natural man receiveth not the things of the
              Spirit of God.                        --1 Cor. ii.
                                                    14.
[snip]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11189

FromKeith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
Date2014-06-05 14:41 -0700
Message-ID<go476bxmv9.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
In reply to#11187
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
On 2014-06-05, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> In comp.lang.php, Adrienne Boswell  <arbpen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>> what I want is a function like
>>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
>> So, you could put something on your form like:
>> 
>> "Please use a valid email address. Your issue will not be addressed if
>> our email to you is returned."
>
> If anyone believed that, Usenet would have been gone long ago.

I disagree.  Usenet questions are (or should be) answered on usenet, so
a valid mailbox in the From: header is not necessary.  But if I'm
running a Q&A where the normal response route is via email, then
requiring a valid mailbox address is perfectly reasonable.

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11207

FromEli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com>
Date2014-06-06 22:26 +0000
Message-ID<eli$1406061826@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
In reply to#11189
In comp.os.linux.misc,
Keith Keller  <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> On 2014-06-05, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> In comp.lang.php, Adrienne Boswell  <arbpen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Please use a valid email address. Your issue will not be addressed if
>>> our email to you is returned."
>> If anyone believed that, Usenet would have been gone long ago.
> I disagree.  Usenet questions are (or should be) answered on usenet, so
> a valid mailbox in the From: header is not necessary.  But if I'm

Are not the answers on usenet addressing the issue? 

There are many times that merely getting a message through will
be sufficient to get it addressed. If a website is generating
java errors on a search, I don't need to include a reply email
address to see if the problem gets addressed. I don't even need
to know if I reported it first, or it is a known issue.

Some internet seem to think that sending them a message means you
want to receive email from them. That is not always the case.

Elijah
------
how much id do you want to share when complaining to kleargear.com?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11190

FromAdrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com>
Date2014-06-05 22:21 +0000
Message-ID<XnsA3439C18C9E0Aarbpenyahoocom@78.46.70.116>
In reply to#11187
Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote

> In comp.lang.php, Adrienne Boswell  <arbpen@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>> what I want is a function like
>>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
>> So, you could put something on your form like:
>> 
>> "Please use a valid email address. Your issue will not be addressed
>> if our email to you is returned."
> 
> If anyone believed that, Usenet would have been gone long ago.
> How many people post with valid email addresses? Certainly not
> Mr Ineptocracy.
> 

The OP was asking about a form, not Usenet.

-- 
Adrienne Boswell
Arbpen Web Site Design Services - http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info/
The Good Plate - Fresh Gourmet Recipes - http://the-good-plate.com/
Please respond to the group so others can share

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11186

FromJames Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com>
Date2014-06-05 13:14 -0700
Message-ID<T9mdnRbTxPcRUg3OnZ2dnUVZ5o2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#11163
On 06/04/2014 05:48 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> I have web contact pages which are used by anyone to send enquiries.
>
  There are numerous methods to defeat robo-spammers. The simplest is to
require the sendee to enter a specific text into a field; the text is on
the web page itself, e.g., "Enter 'no-spam-4-me.'" You obviously need to
verify the text when receiving a post. This works quite well for us.

-- 
James Moe
jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11194

FromArno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de>
Date2014-06-06 14:11 +0200
Message-ID<5391AFFD.8050809@arnowelzel.de>
In reply to#11163
Am 2014-06-05 02:48, schrieb The Natural Philosopher:

> I have web contact pages which are used by anyone to send enquiries.
> 
> I want to make sure that anyone using them has a valid reply address set 
> in a web form BEFORE I forward the message on to the site administrators.

Without asking the MX you will never know, if the MX is willing to
accept the mail.

And even then - temporary 4xx-failures due to Greylisting are a valid
behaviour as well as failures due to a quota limitation etc. - which all
does *not* mean that the e-mail address is invalid. Unfortunately the
opposite behaviour - accepting a RCPT TO without any error in return -
must not be interpreted as "this is a valid address".

Therefore the usual way to handle this is to send an e-email with a
confirmation request so the user can approve that himself - combined
with a database table to store the pending approvals (which should
timeout after a certain time if no one approves the request - e.g. after
7 days).


-- 
Arno Welzel
http://arnowelzel.de
http://de-rec-fahrrad.de
http://fahrradzukunft.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11232

FromChris Davies <chris-usenet@roaima.co.uk>
Date2014-06-09 13:53 +0100
Message-ID<rbng6bxjia.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>
In reply to#11163
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> I want to make sure that anyone using them has a valid reply address set 
> in a web form BEFORE I forward the message on to the site administrators.

Short of emailing the address and waiting for a reply, you can't.

What you can do is determine whether the address is plausible (syntax,
possible delivery, etc.)

Chris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11565

Fromdon.schueler@gmail.com
Date2014-07-18 03:45 -0700
Message-ID<6967b75f-bc5e-4daf-bd23-d95a449a1dca@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#11163
There are a number of services that will....while not PERFECT....give you 80-90% improvement over the quality of your email deliverability problem. 

Some are free..some are not. I would take a close look at the Free ones to make sure they aren't just harvesting emails somehow. 

Paid-full size and weight - 

http://www.strikeiron.com/product-list/email/email-verification/
http://www.serviceobjects.com/products/email/email-validation
http://www.qas.com/email-verification.htm

Interesting...but some questions...

http://www.leadspend.com/

http://verifalia.com  - very nice API but based in Italy They do have a .Net toolkit that is nicely priced for you MS folks out there. 

Freebies - Caveat Emptor

http://validateemailaddress.org/
http://verify-email.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web