[151168] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Programmers with network engineering skills
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Mar 12 19:52:28 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F5E854D.3050102@mompl.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:47:02 -0700
To: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sometimes you don't want to have your application exposed to an =
unconstrained wait outside
of your control.
Sometimes your application may not have access/permissions/etc. to open =
sockets. (This is actually
a common security precaution in some CGI environments).
Owen
On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Valid_email_addresses
>> You may have noticed my particular test wouldn't accept =
foo!bar!ucbvax!user format addresses, either.
>> It works well enough for my purposes. I did not claim it was perfect.
>=20
> Why not leave it to the MTA to decide what is a valid address? It only =
requires a few SMTP commands to the MTA to know if it will accept it. =
Normally the MTA will tell you after the "rcpt to:" command if it will =
accept it (i'm ignoring some badly behaving MTAs who will swallow =
anything and then bounce, no point trying to work around such crap).
>=20
> No need to re-invent the wheel, unless you're actually creating an MTA =
or something similar.
>=20
> Who is to say that even IF your address verifier verifies it as valid =
that the MTA is configured to allow it (or the other way around)? MTAs =
can be arbitrarily configured to (dis)allow "bang path" addresses, IP =
addresses etc.
>=20
> Regards,
> Jeroen
>=20
> --=20
> Earthquake Magnitude: 5.0
> Date: Monday, March 12, 2012 17:55:10 UTC
> Location: Kepulauan Talaud, Indonesia
> Latitude: 3.0222; Longitude: 127.0054
> Depth: 35.00 km
