On Sunday, Nov 23, 2003, at 08:11 US/Pacific, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Drieux" == Drieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Drieux> Then there is also the 'age' problem, since Drieux> RFC822 is, well, not a Young RFC and is from Drieux> a time before time was known, or at least Drieux> closer to the Epoch than now.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't apply, just because of its age. And by that thinking, RFC2822 which supports and clarifies RFC822 for current practices, is a relatively "young" RFC.
No, that doesn't fly with me.
As it should not. It was a Specious Argument put into play for two basic purposes:
1. It also points out the old way, in which the RFC system was 'designed' to carry not only the current debates about internet standards, but as in the case of Email that they were expecting that there was going to NEED to be a re-write and re-clarification and had reserved the RFC.
2. That the accumulated 'wisdom' and 'best practices' didn't just fall out of the sky and wind up written on stone tablets by SpaceAliens From Planet Zorkonon. While unfortunately there is also the minor problem that explaining Why that Way will lead into PAIN is far too difficult a task for most humans; if for no other reaason than that Folly is Infinite.
The POD and FAQ systems were instituted to help with the basic practice of trapping knowledging so that it could be looked up and re-used. As most would notice with
perldoc -q "mail address"
there is that line in it:
Many are tempted to try to eliminate many frequently-
invalid mail addresses with a simple regex, such as
`/^[\w.-]+\@([\w.-]\.)+\w+$/'. It's a very bad idea.
However, this also throws out many valid ones, and says
nothing about potential deliverability, so is not sug-
gested.Without Pausing to 're-read' that in the sense of how it applies to the problem of "extracting email addys" and that at best one can use some regular expression matching approaches to get 'close' to a list of possible email address that will then need to be 'refined'. In much the same way that we have watched the
So how do I do the regEx to get the 'domain portion'
of a URL...and then having the minor 'oopsie' with things like 'nas.nasa.gov' which IS the 'domain portion' even IF it does not look like 'what most of my common experience' has been with the "foo.<TLDN>" ...
By the way, my previous reply wasn't meant to go to the list. Never answer email while tired. :) It was more venting than instructing. I apologize for the way it sounded.
My Apology for the OOOPSIE moment of returning it to the wrong group. But a part of the problem has always been
Improving the Quality of Newbies!
And the concomitant problem,
Improving the Quality of those trying to Help Newbies!
As an illustration, someone here was polite enough to help me understand the jargon about 'not doing someone elses homework' - so at times I remember that when I am looking at questions raised here.
As for your 'venting' I think I will put that on one of two lists
growing evidence that Randall Schwartz might
actually be a human and not a computer programme
or
deeply emotionally traumatizing thingiePoo
for which I need to schedule more Therapy...the jury is still out.
In the future, you might wish to adopt the strategy of say
"LAME! LAME! LAME!"
formerDrieuxishUnterStumpenFumbler[1]{ provides a REALLY good emotive venting, without the
overall angst laden questions about morality, the cosmic
alignment of Divine Omniscience, and WhatEver... }Since, while the 'proposition' put foward would kinda wander in the right direction offering some sort of 'solution' like behavior, it lacks both experience and elan at solving the 'core problem', and will, overtime, shrival for all the underlying reasons cited in the POD and FAQ.
As for expanding on what is in the POD and FAQ that is a totally different topic for hurranging, and actually provides a Much better approach to raising a question
"Why exactly does <faq_tag_here>, which asserts
<faq_assertion_here>, mean in 'real terms',
I am trying <illustration> and ...."So If folks, both newbies and those trying to help them, were to remember the POD and FAQ data better, then we of course would not wandering into this class of problem on the semi-regular basis that we do.
ciao drieux
---
[1] I of course provide attribution by indirection, since I am not sure that my UnterStumpenFumbler has fully recovered from the usage of that phrase in professional contexts...
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
