[BUG] Re: email syntax validation needed

Derek Brans brans at nerdonawire.com
Mon Jun 16 00:44:23 UTC 2003


On the subject of bugs,

MailAddressParser addressesIn: 'asdf, asdf'
evaluates to {'asdf' . 'asdf'}.  But shouldn't it raise an error (since asdf
is not a syntactically valid email address)?

Thanks for all comments posted to this thread.

Derek Brans
Nerd on a Wire
Web design that's anything but square
http://www.nerdonawire.com
mailto: brans at nerdonawire.com
phone: 604.874.6463
toll-free: 1-877-NERD-ON-A-WIRE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.orgsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 4:21 AM
Subject: [BUG] Re: email syntax validation needed


> merlyn at stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> > >>>>> "Derek" == Derek Brans <brans at nerdonawire.com> writes:
> >
> > Derek> Does anyone have code (or is there any in the image) which, given
a string, returns whether or not that string is a syntactically valid email
address?
> >
> > In addition to the other messages in this thread, let me also point out
> > that the following are valid:
> >
> >   *@qz.to (my friend, Eli the bearded uses this one)
> >   fred&barney at stonehenge.com (my example when it comes up - go ahead and
test it!)
> >   merlyn@(that's "at")stonehenge(the rock place (that rocks!)).com(dot
com!)
> >
>
> For the record, Squeak's mail parser handles the first and third, but
> loops on the second.  There is an issue with the various character sets:
> $& is not in the list of valid atom characters, and there is no check in
> the parser for characters that don't match any valid character set.
>
> In the third case it removes the comments for you.
>
>
> > In general, there are no illegal characters, but everything has to
appear
> > in a proper context.
>
> Are you certain that & may be used in an atom?  I followed the RFC
> religiously, and I'm sure I started at <atom> and worked out the list of
> allowed characters.  But maybe I misread it, or maybe a later RFC allows
> more characters?
>
>
> Lex
>
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list