On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> If we let
>
> X = [-a-zA-Z0-9!#$%&\'*+/=?^_`{|}~]+
>
> ...then the regexp is:
>
> ^X(\.X)*...@x(\.X)*$
>
> I believe this is correct, yes.
I used to have a mail address whose local part had both a leading and
a trailing dot: .t...@wanadoo.f
Am Montag, den 24.08.2009, 16:33 -0400 schrieb Brian Campbell:
> Given that there are so many technically invalid addresses that
> actually do work to deliver mail, and that I'm sure some people have
> odd addresses due to poor form validation […]
Well, maybe the RFC should be updated as well
- domain-part should be [a-zA-Z0-9]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9]+)+
Correction. "-" is allowed for domain-part.
--
TAMURA Kent
Software Engineer, Google
FYI.
I was in Gmail team and wrote the email address validation code which we are
currently using.
Gmail's validation rules are:
- require "@"
- local-part should be
- quoted-string without CFWS and FWS, or
- 1*(atext / ".")This means dot-atom-text without "." restriction.
This loosene
On Aug 24, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Yup. If it is deliverable then surely it's an alias to the same
address
without the trailing dot, in which case a browser could choose to
remove
it.
Yes, it's not possible for "example.com." to mean anything different
from "example.com". (
2009/8/24 Peter Kasting :
> I am mentoring a student who is writing a patch for this in WebKit as we
> speak -- we were just discussing the implementation yesterday and I believe
> he hopes to have it out for review tomorrow.
The mentored student has published the patch and is waiting for
comment
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Do these still have a normal TLD identifier before the trailing dot?
> Or are they just *really* weird?
None of the addresses had more than one thing wrong with it. These
looked like perfectly normal addresses but with a trailing dot, like
Aryeh Gregor writes:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Smylers wrote:
>
> > It's too complicated for most developers to roll their own
> > validation, but there are standard libraries available which get it
> > right.
>
> Standard libraries available for all major languages?
I'd be surprised i
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> The breakdown of the 202 is as follows.
>
> * Single trailing dot in domain part: 100 (prohibited by RFC but
> plausibly deliverable)
Do these still have a normal TLD identifier before the trailing dot?
Or are they just *really* weird?
I almo
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Smylers wrote:
> It's too complicated for most developers to roll their own validation,
> but there are standard libraries available which get it right.
Standard libraries available for all major languages? As far as I can
tell from a quick search, the PHP standar
Aryeh Gregor writes:
> Historically, MediaWiki has mostly just required that an @ symbol be
> present in the address. Originally we used a simplistic regex,
It's relatively well known that a simple regex can't be used to match
e-mail addresses (and not match things that aren't!); Jeffrey Friedl'
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Peter Kasting wrote:
> I think telling user agents to strip leading and trailing whitespace is a
> good idea. I'm not as sure about stripping whitespace in the middle.
It seems like (some?) mail agents will do that already, if it's around
a dot or the @. If I do
Thanks very much for this analysis!
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Aryeh Gregor
> wrote:
> Inspection showed that the overwhelming majority of the failures were
> due to the presence of excess whitespace, often a single trailing
> space, or a space inserted before or after the @ sign. When I
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Unless you avoid validating *entirely*, there's virtually always going
> to be some subset of theoretically valid addresses that you'll flag as
> invalid, though.
There shouldn't be, IMO, if the browser is forbidden to submit them.
> Unlike
Thanks for doing this work, Aryeh! It's really awesome!
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Beyond that, although it's safe to say that quoted-string or
> domain-literal or even entirely invalid addresses are extraordinarily
> rare, there are *some* real people who do use them.
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Alternatively, you could just loosen the restrictions even further,
> and only ban input that doesn't contain an @ sign. (Or that doesn't
> match ^...@]+@[...@]+\.[^@]+$, or whatever.) Or just don't ban anything
> at all, like with type=tel.
2009/8/23 Aryeh Gregor :
> Or just don't ban anything
> at all, like with type=tel. type=email differs from most of the other
> types with validity constraints (like month, number, etc.) in that the
> difference between valid and invalid values is a purely pragmatic
> question (what will actual
17 matches
Mail list logo
