#8038: email address validator does not accept + in addresses
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: ddrake | Owner: was
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.3.2
Component: notebook | Keywords:
Author: Dan Drake | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Comment(by mpatel):
Replying to [comment:6 ddrake]:
> Replying to [comment:5 mpatel]:
> Your regexp seems pretty good. I'm a bit confused about
> {{{
> %(unquoted)s+(\.%(unquoted)s+)*
> }}}
> though. Doesn't that simply match one or more "unquoted" characters? The
first bit matches one or more, then the second bit matches zero or more --
so altogether that's one or more. Right? I'm not a regexp wizard by any
means.
I'm far from regexpert, myself. I think the first part, `%(unquoted)s+`,
matches one or more unquoted characters (e.g., `$uper`), but the rest of
the line above matches zero or more blocks (e.g., `.duper+foo`), each of
which begins with a period and ends with a string of at least one unquoted
character.
> Also, the RFC (3696) says that the local part has a maximum of 64
characters and the domain part a max of 255 characters, so maybe we could
toss in something like this:
> {{{
> if re_valid_email.match(email) is None:
> return False
> lengths = map(len, email.split('@'))
> if lengths[0] > 64 or lengths[1] > 255:
> return False
> return True
> }}}
> Thoughts?
If we later enable quoted local-parts (e.g., `"f...@bar"@barfoo.com`),
we'll need to modify this test. But for now, we simply reject them, so
it's no problem.
RFC 3696's [http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3696 erratum
1003] and [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-4.5.3.1 RFC 5321]
also give a ''total'' upper bound of 256 characters (the `sup` may be
254). What if we just check that `7 < len(email) < 255`? I assume we can
tolerate the [few] false positives that get through --- the confirmation
message would not arrive at a truly invalid address.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8038#comment:7>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
