email edit

[Kenneth Brody]

Quoting Jay R. Ashworth (Wed, 1 Nov 2006 13:35:52 -0500):

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:50:31PM -0500, Brian K. White wrote:
[...]
> > I wouldn't be surprised if you can have more than one @
>
> You can't.

Then why does <"foo at bar"@hvcomputer.com> work?

> > You don't need even one .
>
> You do.

<nitpick>
    username at localhost
</nitpick>

> > You can have any number of .'s
>
> This is true.
>
> > You can have one @ and no dots
>
> Only on internal networks.

As noted above.

> > then theres: network!hosta!hostb!hostc!user
>
> See above; find me a live example of an address like this, and I'll buy
> you dinner at Berns.

Well, there's "likely to be found in the real world", and then there's
"RFC compliant".

[...]
> > The only correct way to validate an email address is to actually
> > validate it. Which requires the machine running fp to have a working
> > mta.
>
> That's the best way, but you can't really *validate* it, either; "VRFY"
> only works on mailers run by Really Stupid Sysadmins.

Are we looking to "validate" the address, or simply verify that it is
properly formed?

[...]
> > In the end, you _still_ can't really know because you have no control
> > over the recipient mail servers.
>
> No, but we're only trying to trap typos.

Typos that cause malformed address can be caught.  Typos that cause
a valid address, but which belongs to someone else, can only be
caught by using "confirmed"/"verified" opt-in techniques.  And if
you're going to confirm the address anyway, allowing malformed
addresses through will (with few exceptions) not cause any problems.

[...]

--
KenBrody at BestWeb dot net        spamtrap: <g8ymh8uf001 at sneakemail.com>
http://www.hvcomputer.com
http://www.fileProPlus.com