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

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

testing email deliverability...

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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#11163 — testing email deliverability...

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.


Mailer is exim, and that's currently but not necessarily invoked by the 
php mail() function.


what I want is a function like

is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")

that will return true or false if gmail accepts the user as known (yes 
the spam is always @gmail.com) WITHOUT having to write a dns mx lookup, 
then connect to socket 25 and etc etc etc..

exim -bt tells me if the domain is valid, but not the user.

I am not particular how its achieved - anything can be merged into the 
existing code.

anyone done this?


-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11164

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]

On 2014-06-05, 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.

There is absolutely no way to do this for arbitrary domains.  Some
MXs will accept all mail addressed to it, then decide later how to
handle the message (discard, bounce, deliver).

> that will return true or false if gmail accepts the user as known (yes 
> the spam is always @gmail.com) WITHOUT having to write a dns mx lookup, 
> then connect to socket 25 and etc etc etc..

It's not even possible (for an arbitrary domain) *with* doing an MX
lookup and connecting to port 25.  It will be possible for some MXs but
not all, and there's no way of determining ahead of time whether a
domain will do this for you or not.  This is why many sites require
separate confirmation by sending email to the target with a link that
verifies that the recipient actually received the mail.

--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]

#11165

On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:40:04 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
> 
> On 2014-06-05, 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.

> There is absolutely no way to do this for arbitrary domains.  Some MXs
> will accept all mail addressed to it, then decide later how to handle
> the message (discard, bounce, deliver).

Yes there is, you send a verify code to their email address and don't 
process the form to an email to the admin until they've completed it.

When they enter the form, hold the data in a session var while you 
present a second form and send a verification email.

The second form and the verification email explain that the code in this 
verification email has to be entered in the form on the website to send 
the email.

You could even do this in a single form by using a json request to pass 
the users email address back to the server, and having a disabled 
verification code input on the form which becomes enabled once the server 
has responded to said json request.

Of course, this breaks if javascript isn't enabled.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

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

#11166

On 2014-06-05, Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes there is, you send a verify code to their email address

...which is specifically what the OP said he does not want to do.

--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]

#11175

Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote in 
news:kcu46bx3eq.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us:

> There is absolutely no way to do this for arbitrary domains.  Some
> MXs will accept all mail addressed to it, then decide later how to
> handle the message (discard, bounce, deliver).

I was intrigued by some web-forms recently when, as I entered my gmail 
address in them I had accidentally mad a typo & as soon as I tabbed to the 
next field on  the form they highlighted the email text box in red & 
flagged a "Invalid email address" error. 

Just curio

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

#11178

Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote in 
news:kcu46bx3eq.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us:

> There is absolutely no way to do this for arbitrary domains.  Some
> MXs will accept all mail addressed to it, then decide later how to
> handle the message (discard, bounce, deliver).

Recently I was filling a web-form & made a typo in the email address field. 
As soon as I tabbed to the next field it highlighted my email adddress text 
box & flagged an error saying "Invalid email address"

I was surprised. Syntactically the address was OK. It was a gmail address. 

Do some mail providers release some sort of API to test address validity 
for third parties?

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

#11273

Rahul <nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote in 
>news:kcu46bx3eq.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us:
>> There is absolutely no way to do this for arbitrary domains.  Some
>> MXs will accept all mail addressed to it, then decide later how to
>> handle the message (discard, bounce, deliver).
>
>Recently I was filling a web-form & made a typo in the email address field. 
>As soon as I tabbed to the next field it highlighted my email adddress text 
>box & flagged an error saying "Invalid email address"

Maybe a typo that made the address syntactically invalid, which is
easy to detect? Or maybe even a typo that didn't invalidate the
address, but a brain fart in the web developer thought it was invalid.

Web forms are notorious to flag valid things like
mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us as invalid because web developers didn't
read the standards that they got paid to implement.

Others think that m@example.com is invalid because they can't believe
that there are short local parts, others think that
foo..bar@example.com is invalid because there cannot be two periods
following each other in a local parts, others even think that
mh---spam201406@zugschlus.de is invalid because there cannot be three
dashes.

>I was surprised. Syntactically the address was OK. It was a gmail address. 

Can you give the address please?

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

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

#11275

Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in news:lnh626$jfi$1
@news1.tnib.de:

>>I was surprised. Syntactically the address was OK. It was a gmail 
> address. 
> 
> Can you give the address please?
> 

It was xxxxx@gmail.com 

No periods, dashes, or other funniness. 

I'll post the website if I can figure it out from my history. 

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

#11277

Rahul <nospam@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in news:lnh626$jfi$1
>@news1.tnib.de:
>>>I was surprised. Syntactically the address was OK. It was a gmail 
>> address. 
>> 
>> Can you give the address please?
>
>It was xxxxx@gmail.com 
>
>No periods, dashes, or other funniness.

Maybe a temporary glitch, or extraordinary stupidity on the web devs
part.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

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

#11167

"The Natural Philosopher"  wrote in message 
news:lmoeok$5v6$1@news.albasani.net...
>
>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.
>
>
>Mailer is exim, and that's currently but not necessarily invoked by the php 
>mail() function.
>
>
>what I want is a function like
>
>is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
>
>that will return true or false if gmail accepts the user as known (yes the 
>spam is always @gmail.com) WITHOUT having to write a dns mx lookup, then 
>connect to socket 25 and etc etc etc..
>
>exim -bt tells me if the domain is valid, but not the user.
>
>I am not particular how its achieved - anything can be merged into the 
>existing code.
>
>anyone done this?
>
>
"The Natural Philosopher"  wrote in message 
news:lmoeok$5v6$1@news.albasani.net...
>
>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.
>
>
>Mailer is exim, and that's currently but not necessarily invoked by the php 
>mail() function.
>
>
>what I want is a function like
>
>is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
>
>that will return true or false if gmail accepts the user as known (yes the 
>spam is always @gmail.com) WITHOUT having to write a dns mx lookup, then 
>connect to socket 25 and etc etc etc..
>
>exim -bt tells me if the domain is valid, but not the user.
>
>I am not particular how its achieved - anything can be merged into the 
>existing code.
>
>anyone done this?
>
>

You can use the filter_var() function at 
http://uk3.php.net/manual/en/function.filter-var.php to check that an email 
address is syntactically valid, but you cannot check that an email exists 
without sending an email and getting a response back.

-- 
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org 

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

#11172

In comp.os.linux.misc, Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher"  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.

I'd like to verify that the lottery number is going to win before I buy the
ticket. Unfortunely I don't think either of us is going to be happy.

>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")

Did you think that you are the first person to want this? Think how useful
it would be for spammers to find new email addresses before sending email!

> You can use the filter_var() function at 
> http://uk3.php.net/manual/en/function.filter-var.php to check that an email 
> address is syntactically valid, but you cannot check that an email exists 
> without sending an email and getting a response back.

I have NEVER seen a "syntactically valid" check that really works. The
comments on that page list many valid addresses that don't work. (And
many validators wrongly think I post from an invalid address, but it's
syntactically valid and a working mail alias.)

Elijah
------
and some "syntactically invalid" addresses work well in practice

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

#11176

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
> Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
>
> Did you think that you are the first person to want this? Think how useful
> it would be for spammers to find new email addresses before sending email!

No use at all.  Spammers use stolen resources, so spam sent to
undeliverable addresses doesn’t cost them anything.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

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

#11180

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
On 2014-06-05, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>> Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
>>
>> Did you think that you are the first person to want this? Think how useful
>> it would be for spammers to find new email addresses before sending email!
>
> No use at all.  Spammers use stolen resources, so spam sent to
> undeliverable addresses doesn???t cost them anything.

If they had a list of valid addresses they'd get their spam sent out
faster.  I strongly suspect they'd use such a resource if it existed.

--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]

#11181

On 05/06/14 16:05, Keith Keller wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
> On 2014-06-05, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>>> Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
>>>
>>> Did you think that you are the first person to want this? Think how useful
>>> it would be for spammers to find new email addresses before sending email!
>>
>> No use at all.  Spammers use stolen resources, so spam sent to
>> undeliverable addresses doesn???t cost them anything.
>
> If they had a list of valid addresses they'd get their spam sent out
> faster.  I strongly suspect they'd use such a resource if it existed.
>

They have those BUT bulk emailings from uncontrolled IP addresses are 
constrained.

Hence the need to subvert things like contact pages ..

in my case the email simply goes to one person. So its a total waste of 
their effort.


But they are stupid enough to not know that. These email engines are it 
seems collections of script kiddy outpourings designed to exploit any 
and every possible avenue.

Its only an irritation but its just irritating enough for me to simply
want to spend an hour or so eradicating it.

And it looks like it should work as advertised earlier.


> --keith
>


-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

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

#11182

On 6/5/2014 11:05 AM, Keith Keller wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
> On 2014-06-05, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>>> Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
>>>
>>> Did you think that you are the first person to want this? Think how useful
>>> it would be for spammers to find new email addresses before sending email!
>>
>> No use at all.  Spammers use stolen resources, so spam sent to
>> undeliverable addresses doesn???t cost them anything.
>
> If they had a list of valid addresses they'd get their spam sent out
> faster.  I strongly suspect they'd use such a resource if it existed.
>
> --keith
>

Keith,

Very definitely.  "Clean" lists are gold to spammers.  They are much 
less likely send to honeypots or similar, and much less likely to be 
blocked by larger email hosts because they are sending to too many 
invalid addresses.

I get advertisements (SPAM) for such lists from various people (usually 
with gmail or similar addresses) a couple of times a month.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

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

#11183

On 2014-06-05, Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
> On 2014-06-05, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>>> Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
>>>
>>> Did you think that you are the first person to want this? Think how useful
>>> it would be for spammers to find new email addresses before sending email!
>>
>> No use at all.  Spammers use stolen resources, so spam sent to
>> undeliverable addresses doesn???t cost them anything.
>
> If they had a list of valid addresses they'd get their spam sent out
> faster.  I strongly suspect they'd use such a resource if it existed.
>
> --keith
>
I validate the email domains, that is easy to do using gethostbyname().
I have found that gets rid of most of the clunkers.

YMMV

-- 
Mike McGinn	KD2CNU
"More kidneys than eyes."

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

#11185

On 2014-06-05 16:31, Mike McGinn <mikemcginn@mcginnweb.net> wrote:
> On 2014-06-05, Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
>> On 2014-06-05, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>>>> Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
[...]
> I validate the email domains, that is easy to do using gethostbyname().

gethostbyname returns the IPv4 address of the domain. The existence of
an IPv4 address is neither sufficient nor necessary for an email
address. For example, "hjp.at" doesn't have an A record, but the address
in the header works. OTOH, "www.hjp.at" does have one (of course), but
there are no valid email addresses of the form "localpart@www.hjp.at".

> I have found that gets rid of most of the clunkers.

It probably also gets rid of quite a few valid email addresses.

        hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Fluch der elektronischen Textverarbeitung:
|_|_) |                    | Man feilt solange an seinen Text um, bis
| |   | hjp@hjp.at         | die Satzbestandteile des Satzes nicht mehr
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ | zusammenpaßt. -- Ralph Babel

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

#11228

Eli the Bearded, 2014-06-05 06:53:

> In comp.os.linux.misc, Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher"  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.
> 
> I'd like to verify that the lottery number is going to win before I buy the
> ticket. Unfortunely I don't think either of us is going to be happy.
> 
>>> is_valid_mail("user12345@gmail.com")
> 
> Did you think that you are the first person to want this? Think how useful
> it would be for spammers to find new email addresses before sending email!
> 
>> You can use the filter_var() function at 
>> http://uk3.php.net/manual/en/function.filter-var.php to check that an email 
>> address is syntactically valid, but you cannot check that an email exists 
>> without sending an email and getting a response back.
> 
> I have NEVER seen a "syntactically valid" check that really works. The

This one should:

<http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html>



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

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

#11240

In comp.lang.php, Arno Welzel  <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded, 2014-06-05 06:53:
> > I have NEVER seen a "syntactically valid" check that really works. The
> This one should:
> <http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html>

Did you actually read that page? Right there before the regexp is this
clear warning:

    The regular expression does not cope with comments in email
    addresses. The RFC allows comments to be arbitrarily nested. A
    single regular expression cannot cope with this. The Perl module
    pre-processes email addresses to remove comments before applying the
    mail regular expression. 

That particular test claims RFC822 awareness, but allows "å@å.å" which
does not pass the ASCII-ASCII-ASCII! RFC822 muster or RFC2822 muster,
even if it might be valid now depending on encoding (see RFC6532, which
first allowed non-ASCII email header values back in February 2012).

It also fails the too-rigid test: RFC822 does not allow email addresses
with a localpart that ends with a period, but periods are allowed
everywhere else in a localpart. This test enforces that rule, when real
world mailservers don't care all that much about <rfc822.@example.com>
not being RFC822 kosher.

Elijah
------
although a localpart of only periods is likely to fail

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

#11246

Am 2014-06-10 01:08, schrieb Eli the Bearded:

> In comp.lang.php, Arno Welzel  <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded, 2014-06-05 06:53:
>>> I have NEVER seen a "syntactically valid" check that really works. The
>> This one should:
>> <http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html>
> 
> Did you actually read that page? Right there before the regexp is this
> clear warning:
> 
>     The regular expression does not cope with comments in email
>     addresses. The RFC allows comments to be arbitrarily nested. A
>     single regular expression cannot cope with this. The Perl module
>     pre-processes email addresses to remove comments before applying the
>     mail regular expression. 

Thanks for the clarification - I did not read that comment completely.



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

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web