email edit

[Kenneth Brody]

Quoting Jay R. Ashworth (Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:21:59 -0500):

> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 03:07:00PM -0500, Kenneth Brody wrote:
> > > 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?
>
>
> Well, RFC 2822 is pretty opaque in its choice of syntax, but that does
> actually appear to be legal.
>
> The same Berns steak offer applies, if you can find a production
> mailbox with an at-sign in it's name -- that is, one that wasn't
> created to win a steak dinner.  :-)

Well, I've used it (rarely) along with the "+" syntax, to provide
unique (ie: traceable back to its source, should it receive spam)
addresses.  (Though I usually use "_" in such cases, simply for
ease of use.)

[...]
> > Well, there's "likely to be found in the real world", and then there's
> > "RFC compliant".
>
> Yes, there is.  I don't feel the need to be 100.0% RFC 2822 compliant
> in the environment in question; we're not trying to rewrite sendmail in
> filePro.

So, would you rather reject the once-in-a-blue-moon "valid" address
as "invalid", or would you rather allow the occasional "malformed"
address as "valid", which will be picked up in the opt-in confirmation
code?

Both choices are equally valid, depending on your needs.

[...]
> > Are we looking to "validate" the address, or simply verify that it is
> > properly formed?
>
> *I* was only concerned with form, not substance.  :-)

Ditto.

[...]

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