Re: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-09 Thread Gregory Seidman
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 02:32:01PM -0700, David Graham wrote: } --- Paananen, Tero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: } +1 on the new option but I think the allowed characters should be } } a-zA-Z0-9_.- } } -999 } } That's missing several perfectly valid

[Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread Jerry Jalenak
Is there a published specification on e-mail addresses? The reason I ask is that we are using the 'email' validator, and it's accepting as valid e-mail addresses such as 'u-+-+%^_/[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. I didn't think Validator would accept these, but apparently is it. If there's not an

Re: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread David Graham
--- Jerry Jalenak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a published specification on e-mail addresses? I believe it's RFC 822. The reason I ask is that we are using the 'email' validator, and it's accepting as valid e-mail addresses such as 'u-+-+%^_/[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. I didn't think

RE: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread Paananen, Tero
Is there a published specification on e-mail addresses? The reason I ask is that we are using the 'email' validator, and it's accepting as valid e-mail addresses such as 'u-+-+%^_/[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. I didn't think Validator would accept these, but apparently is it. If there's not an

RE: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread Jerry Jalenak
: Monday, September 08, 2003 10:34 AM To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' Subject: RE: [Validator] E-Mail Verification Is there a published specification on e-mail addresses? The reason I ask is that we are using the 'email' validator, and it's accepting as valid e-mail addresses

Re: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread Mike Kienenberger
David Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jerry Jalenak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a published specification on e-mail addresses? I believe it's RFC 822. Unfortunately, I think that's a valid email address as defined in the RFC. You're better off writing your own. RFC 822 is very

Re: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread Robert Leland
David Graham wrote: --- Jerry Jalenak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a published specification on e-mail addresses? I believe it's RFC 822. The reason I ask is that we are using the 'email' validator, and it's accepting as valid e-mail addresses such as 'u-+-+%^_/[EMAIL

Re: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread David Graham
--- Robert Leland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Graham wrote: --- Jerry Jalenak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a published specification on e-mail addresses? I believe it's RFC 822. The reason I ask is that we are using the 'email' validator, and it's

RE: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread Paananen, Tero
+1 on the new option but I think the allowed characters should be a-zA-Z0-9_.- -999 That's missing several perfectly valid characters in Email addresses, like a space, +, single quote, etc. The RFC defines the valid characters for a reason.

RE: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread Jerry Jalenak
Lead, Web Publishing LabOne, Inc. 10101 Renner Blvd. Lenexa, KS 66219 (913) 577-1496 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: David Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 3:45 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

RE: [Validator] E-Mail Verification

2003-09-08 Thread David Graham
--- Paananen, Tero [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on the new option but I think the allowed characters should be a-zA-Z0-9_.- -999 That's missing several perfectly valid characters in Email addresses, like a space, +, single quote, etc. The RFC