Timeline for Accurate email syntax validation (no seriously)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jan 26, 2016 at 16:18 | vote | accept | SuperBiasedMan | ||
Jan 26, 2016 at 16:09 | comment | added | SuperBiasedMan | @Octopus I also got that, I assumed it was that providers are more stringent even with outgoing email addresses. | |
Jan 25, 2016 at 8:59 | comment | added | Ferrybig |
At least this email checker works with my special XSS checking email code "<script>alert('xss')</script>"@example.com
|
|
Jan 23, 2016 at 22:58 | answer | added | ymbirtt | timeline score: 12 | |
Jan 23, 2016 at 22:40 | comment | added | Rob Starling | In my experience, it's worth asking "why". That is, other than avoiding accidental transcription errors on the part of end users, unless you're actually implementing a MTA, why not just accept any string? Particularly in the case where a user is telling you their own email address, then important "validation" is whether they can receive a secret sent to that address. | |
Jan 23, 2016 at 21:40 | comment | added | Bergi | "I did heavily consult the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia for its summary on the rules." - there's your problem. If implementing something technical, you should always get the official spec - which is RFC 2822 (and the updates to it) for your case. | |
Jan 23, 2016 at 7:19 | answer | added | Sjoerd Job Postmus | timeline score: 7 | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 21:58 | comment | added | Octopus | Well I just tried sending an email to somebody(with_a_comment)@gmail.com and my gmail won't even let me send it. It says "somebody" is invalid. The comment is not even mentioned in the error message. | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 21:37 | comment | added | Connor Clark | Does anyone have a good resource on why rules regarding valid email names are so liberal? | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 20:30 | answer | added | rhino | timeline score: 33 | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 19:07 | comment | added | njzk2 | you may want to take a look at ex-parrot.com/pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 17:34 | comment | added | hobbs |
Your handling of comments isn't strictly correct; quoted-string can only contain FWS between the quotes, not CFWS , so anything that looks like a comment inside a quoted-string isn't a comment, and shouldn't be removed. Something similar is true for domain-literal s inside square brackets. Neither is likely to have much real-world impact, but if you want to be absolutely correct you might want to think about how to handle that.
|
|
Jan 22, 2016 at 15:40 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag |
Unfortunately, I couldn't get your code to work (I get an IndentationError ), but I suspect that it might fail even on some of the more simple examples from RFC3696.
|
|
Jan 22, 2016 at 13:32 | answer | added | Peilonrayz♦ | timeline score: 24 | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 13:02 | answer | added | 301_Moved_Permanently | timeline score: 17 | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 12:47 | answer | added | Pimgd | timeline score: 24 | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 12:23 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCodeReview/status/690510184872067072 | ||
Jan 22, 2016 at 12:19 | comment | added | 301_Moved_Permanently | Not necessarily. And now that I came to think of it, it seems to make much more sense this way. | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 12:17 | comment | added | SuperBiasedMan | @MathiasEttinger Yeah I thought a pattern of silent acceptance but vocal errors would be more useful for the specificity. Do you think the pattern is unclear or user unfriendly? | |
Jan 22, 2016 at 12:15 | comment | added | 301_Moved_Permanently |
Nevermind, try: validate(email); except InvalidEmail: pass seems fine too :)
|
|
Jan 22, 2016 at 11:49 | history | edited | SuperBiasedMan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
Jan 22, 2016 at 11:31 | history | asked | SuperBiasedMan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |