Tom Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Please, don't attempt to "validate" the local-part. It's not up to
>> you to decide what the receiving MTA will accept as a local-part,
> Absolutely not - it's up to the IETF, and their decision is recorded
> in RF
On 09/12/05, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only validation you should be doing before sending the message ison the domain part. Since there are records available in DNS toverify, you can check those. Is there an MX record? Is the addressvalid? Do the mappings both way for that record ma
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Ben Finney wrote:
> Tom Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A hoary old chestnut this - any advice on how to syntactically
>> validate an email address?
>
> Yes: Don't.
>
>http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3696.html#sec-3>
The IETF must have updated that RFC between yo
Tom Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A hoary old chestnut this - any advice on how to syntactically
> validate an email address?
Yes: Don't.
http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3696.html#sec-3>
The only validation you should be doing before sending the message is
on the domain part. Since t
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:10:04 +, Tom Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>A hoary old chestnut this - any advice on how to syntactically validate an
>email address? I'd like to support both the display-name-and-angle-bracket
>and bare-address forms, and to allow everything that RFC 282
Hi all,
A hoary old chestnut this - any advice on how to syntactically validate an
email address? I'd like to support both the display-name-and-angle-bracket
and bare-address forms, and to allow everything that RFC 2822 allows (and
nothing more!).
Currently, i've got some regexps which recogni
