I think before you make a statement like "I would hope that the RFC decision
makers take a less restrictive stance on these protocols to allow for
greater creativity" that you read up on all the background material that
went in to making an RFC, or at a bare minimum that you become part of a
workgroup that is creating an RFC. Then you will understand why things are
done the way they are done. It isn't to be restrictive but rather to make
sure it works with all platforms under most if not all conditions.
Please consult the RFC's before you start saying that things should or
should not be done a certain way, or that say good data will be excluded
because of this or that reason. I can write a regex against the RFC's and if
it doesn't clear the regex then it is bad data regardless of what you say or
want. Remember that as ISP's when you get your backbone connection contract
it tells you in there that you and your system must abide by, and be RFC
complaint, and anything different just isn't really Internet standards.
Tim Jung
System Admin
Internet Gateway Inc.
tjung@igateway.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Swerve" <shwa@swerve.com>
To: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>; "Jeremy Bettis"
<jeremyb@hksys.com>; "Lance Woodson" <lance@cswnet.com>
Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: "." before the "@"
> i was one of the original posters wondering if
> .@LegalizeMarijuana.Org would work.
>
> it sounds like this is not an accepted technical standard, and thus could
> cause email disruptions because it is not universally accepted. In the
> future i would hope that the RFC decision makers take a less restrictive
> stance on these protocols to allow for greater creativity in this very
cool
> medium we are all working in.
>
> Josh Melamed
>
> ~ don't forget about the big picture. xHale
>
> > From: "Derek J. Balling" <dredd@megacity.org>
> > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:04:54 -0700
> > To: "Jeremy Bettis" <jeremyb@hksys.com>, "Lance Woodson"
<lance@cswnet.com>
> > Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > Subject: Re: "." before the "@"
> >
> > Just because YOUR system is tolerant of bad data and the recipient's
> > system is tolerant of bad data doesn't mean the database should be
> > polluted with bad data.
> >
> > D
> >
> > At 9:37 AM -0500 6/20/00, Jeremy Bettis wrote:
> >> Because there is no need, if you hand an address to your mailer and it
barfs
> >> on it, it doesn't matter why it barfed.
> >>
> >> My point is this: most form validation doesn't help anyone. It makes
it
> >> harder for the customer to use and harder for the vendor to debug. If
you
> >> arn't going to do digitial processing on the data, then you don't need
> >> validation conditions, if you are going to do processing on the data,
then
> >> use the same method for validation that you use for processing. You
want to
> >> know if an email address is valid, send an email. You want to see if a
zip
> >> code is valid, look it up in a city/state zip code database.
> >>
> >> Eventually someone will come along and give your form valid data that
your
> >> regex doesn't like for some reason. I'd rather not have to fix it
EVER.
> >> --
> >> Jeremy Bettis -- Hickman-Kenyon Systems, Inc.
> >> jeremyb@hksys.com
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Lance Woodson" <lance@cswnet.com>
> >> Cc: <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 1:07 PM
> >> Subject: Re: "." before the "@"
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'd love to send a confirmation email but how can I send a
confirmation
> >>> email to an incorrectly typed email address?
> >>>
> >>> The testing of a regex should be pretty easy. Many eyes make few
bugs.
> >>> :-) /me knocks on wood.
> >>>
> >>> RFCs are requests for comments. They aren't automatically standards
so
> >>> just because someone publishes one, doesn't mean the standard changes.
> >>> I can't fathom the standard for email addresses changing any time
soon.
> >>>
> >>> Also, why would you not even require an @? I'm not trying to start a
> >>> flame war; I've just never heard an argument for not requiring an @.
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:38 EDT