Email-address validation

[Mika M]

Re: Email-address validation

>> Simple question: Does Framework (1.1) contain any routine to check[color=blue][color=green]
>> entered
>> email-address is valid ?[/color]
>
> No.
>[color=green]
>> It's quite easy to make own code for that purpose[/color]
>
> Are you sure?!
>
> Parsing Email Addresses using an RFC822 Compliant Address Validator
> <URL:http://www.codeproject .com/csharp/RFC822Validator .asp>[/color]

Well... I mean making my own function for checking that email address looks
like correct returning true or false, but may not be really existing
email-address anyway. Function might check for example one '@' sign exists
somewhere in the middle of address, and after that is at least one dot but
not as a last character... and so on... :)

Ofcourse user's own sense is needed with this. I have to think this more...

Regular expressions are too terrible to use!
--
Mika

[steve]

Re: Email-address validation

| Well... I mean making my own function for checking that email address
looks
| like correct returning true or false, but may not be really existing
| email-address anyway. Function might check for example one '@' sign exists
| somewhere in the middle of address, and after that is at least one dot but
| not as a last character... and so on... :)

no, you can't know if the user account actually exists but there are
standards (rfc 2822 for example) that let you know if the address supplied
conforms to a valid address. i doubt you've explored the rfcs at all based
on your "and so on..." naive explanation of what your function might do.
there are a lot more rules than that!

| Ofcourse user's own sense is needed with this. I have to think this
more...

no, this is not subjective validation. there are specific rules applied to
internet communication including the format of an email address. one's "own
sense" should be used in creating a function that follows these rules when
validating information that is preported to be an email address.

| Regular expressions are too terrible to use!

apply "i have to think this more..." to "regular expressions are too
terrible to use!". people who damn regular expressions simply don't know how
to use them much less write them...statemen ts made from ignorance. if you
can show me an rfc compliant email validation function that you or anyone
else wrote that is shorter, quicker, or more maintainable than the two
regular expressions given in response to the op's question, i'll gladly shut
up. until then, keep you non-sensical, inexperienced opinions to
yourself...espe cially when the truth of the matter is not "regular
expressions are too terrible to use" but more likely that "you are too
terrible at using regular expressions"!

[scorpion53061]

Re: Email-address validation

Oh wow man.......



"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:10o209ma1v go4ce@corp.supe rnews.com:[color=blue]
> | Well... I mean making my own function for checking that email address
> looks
> | like correct returning true or false, but may not be really existing
> | email-address anyway. Function might check for example one '@' sign
> exists
> | somewhere in the middle of address, and after that is at least one dot
> but
> | not as a last character... and so on... :)
>
> no, you can't know if the user account actually exists but there are
> standards (rfc 2822 for example) that let you know if the address supplied
>
> conforms to a valid address. i doubt you've explored the rfcs at all based
>
> on your "and so on..." naive explanation of what your function might do.
>
> there are a lot more rules than that!
>
> | Ofcourse user's own sense is needed with this. I have to think this
> more...
>
> no, this is not subjective validation. there are specific rules applied to
>
> internet communication including the format of an email address. one's
> "own
> sense" should be used in creating a function that follows these rules when
>
> validating information that is preported to be an email address.
>
> | Regular expressions are too terrible to use!
>
> apply "i have to think this more..." to "regular expressions are too
> terrible to use!". people who damn regular expressions simply don't know
> how
> to use them much less write them...statemen ts made from ignorance. if you
>
> can show me an rfc compliant email validation function that you or anyone
>
> else wrote that is shorter, quicker, or more maintainable than the two
> regular expressions given in response to the op's question, i'll gladly
> shut
> up. until then, keep you non-sensical, inexperienced opinions to
> yourself...espe cially when the truth of the matter is not "regular
> expressions are too terrible to use" but more likely that "you are too
> terrible at using regular expressions"![/color]

[scorpion53061]

Re: Email-address validation

Steve,

I sent a message on your web site. I am not sure where it ended up or
who the form went to.

Fact is you probably need someone better than me but hey it cant hurt to
try.

"steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:10nvp879i2 ho314@corp.supe rnews.com:[color=blue]
> | Hey now you got my attention!! What postitions are you hiring for? :)
> If
> | you need contract work I am all ears....
>
> we are thinking about hiring another vb.net guy to help me out...there's a
>
> lot of stuff to do. i would not be your hiring manager for this position
> but
> would be your project manager. the company is "progress rail services"
> based
> in alabama. as i live in texas, they obviously don't have hang-ups about
>
> working remotely as long as you maintain their trust in managing your
> time.
> it provides various services to railroads like bnsf, ttx, etc.
>
> the current project involves standard and compact .net framework
> development
> for collecting/validating/synchronizing data from out in the field on up
> to
> a central server. i don't know you or i would get you on fairly
> quickly...for now, i'd just get in contact with the it department via
> http://www.progressrail.com .
>
> | Why would I want to pick you apart? I am seeking information about
> what
> | it is you do, your skill level and such. There are times when I look
> for
> | help and it is nice to know who the experts are in the various related
> | fields.
>
> most logical assumption. when defending a kettle, it is often best to
> start
> by showing the pot its own color.
>
> | Point taken. Sometimes though an answer that gets a person started is
> | just as helpful. I know what you mean though. Sometimes people post
> | answers that are not all that helpful.
>
> true, but this is herf's modus apparandai.
>
> | My interest in this thread has gone beyond Herf but is more interested
> | in knowing what you do and what your specialities are. No harm
> intended
> | to you. The fact you took on Herfried is pretty gutsy as everyone I
> have
> | ever known in this group has for the most part thought of Herfried as
> a
> | genius. Of course he is 16 or maybe 18 now and working at a University
> | so they may not be too far off. Of course when I was 16-18 I was a bit
>
> i do whatever needs to be accomplished and have thus far gone nearly run
> the
> gammut. not gutsy...just not naive nor unexperienced.. .herf is no genius
> and
> i've seen no supportive information to the contrary. and, there are plenty
>
> of other who share my sentiments on that issue...we just speak out on rare
>
> occasions.[/color]

[steve]

Re: Email-address validation

a bit over-the-top...but you see how oppinions of "profession als" have
rippling effects as seen by the op's change in attitude about regex as a
viable option for validating email address patterns. that's probably why i
came on so strong when herf posted his original non-sense.

oh well, challenge still stands. ;^)


"scorpion53 061" <admin@nospamhe rekjmsolutions. com> wrote in message
news:%239l7HVTv EHA.3908@TK2MSF TNGP12.phx.gbl. ..
| Oh wow man.......
|
|
|
| "steve" <a@b.com> wrote in message
| news:10o209ma1v go4ce@corp.supe rnews.com:
| > | Well... I mean making my own function for checking that email address
| > looks
| > | like correct returning true or false, but may not be really existing
| > | email-address anyway. Function might check for example one '@' sign
| > exists
| > | somewhere in the middle of address, and after that is at least one dot
| > but
| > | not as a last character... and so on... :)
| >
| > no, you can't know if the user account actually exists but there are
| > standards (rfc 2822 for example) that let you know if the address
supplied
| >
| > conforms to a valid address. i doubt you've explored the rfcs at all
based
| >
| > on your "and so on..." naive explanation of what your function might do.
| >
| > there are a lot more rules than that!
| >
| > | Ofcourse user's own sense is needed with this. I have to think this
| > more...
| >
| > no, this is not subjective validation. there are specific rules applied
to
| >
| > internet communication including the format of an email address. one's
| > "own
| > sense" should be used in creating a function that follows these rules
when
| >
| > validating information that is preported to be an email address.
| >
| > | Regular expressions are too terrible to use!
| >
| > apply "i have to think this more..." to "regular expressions are too
| > terrible to use!". people who damn regular expressions simply don't know
| > how
| > to use them much less write them...statemen ts made from ignorance. if
you
| >
| > can show me an rfc compliant email validation function that you or
anyone
| >
| > else wrote that is shorter, quicker, or more maintainable than the two
| > regular expressions given in response to the op's question, i'll gladly
| > shut
| > up. until then, keep you non-sensical, inexperienced opinions to
| > yourself...espe cially when the truth of the matter is not "regular
| > expressions are too terrible to use" but more likely that "you are too
| > terrible at using regular expressions"!
|

[steve]

Re: Email-address validation

| I sent a message on your web site. I am not sure where it ended up or
| who the form went to.
|
| Fact is you probably need someone better than me but hey it cant hurt to
| try.

well, actually all three projects have very similar aims and requirements.
there's a bunch of touch-screen stuff, web services, and db work involved.
i've built all of the touch-screen controls already (list boxes,
combo-boxes, software keyboard, etc.), so you wouldn't have to re-do that.
i've also got the interfaces for the object model built as well as all of
the server synchronization objects...blah, blah, blah. anyway, all you'd
really be doing would be taking an existing project and modifying it a tad
in order to collect, validate, and ship data.

btw, it went to personnel and will make its way to the it department in
short-order.

cheers.