Hi, On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:26:11 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bob wrote: > > >It looks like Mail_RFC822::isValidInetAddress has the same problem with > >not recognizing '+' as valid > > Have you thought about reporting that as a bug and/or contributing a > better version? Testing for valid email addresses is a pretty standard > task in a web-based application. I had actually hoped that the RFC822 > class would comply with RFC(2)822, so that we don't have to reinvent the > wheel ... I'm more than happy to report it or suggest a patch. I'm extremely busy with the day job and managing some theatrical productions, but I should be able to submit something a little more robust soon. Note that the class does a good job parsing the addresses into comments, hosts, local-paths, etc. It's just that the method isValidInetAddress takes a quick-and-dirty approach that is suitable for most cases. > >though I agree, using PEAR::Mail is a > >better solution, if only so you have less code to maintain. Reduce, > >reuse, recycle. > > (see above) So much for reuse :-/ Then again, if PEAR::Mail does what your original code does and it's less code for you to maintain, use it; we can work on getting PEAR::Mail to do the right thing and more people will benefit. Since I'm the one bitten by it, the burden is on me to get it fixed. ... > Btw, the CVS version of Geeklog now uses PEAR::Mail. See the post over on > geeklog-devtalk: > > <http://lists.geeklog.net/pipermail/geeklog-devtalk/2003-September/000285.html> Beautiful - I'm much happier with code that speaks SMTP rather than code that expects sendmail is installed locally. It comes in very handy in those unfortunate cases where I need to install code under Windows. :) Thanks again for all your work. -- Bob
