[qmailadmin-devel] Re: qmailadmin versus Email::Valid. What's a valid e-amail address ?

[Mark S. <ma...@su...>]

On 2006-03-21, Mark Stosberg <ma...@su...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The following patterns were flagged by the 'Email::Valid' perl module as
> invalid e-mail address formats.. This solution uses a particularly long
> and hairy regular expression that's supposed to match the details set
> forth by the RFC 822 spec for e-mail addresses. 
>
> Here are the three cases:
>
>  .lea...@te...
>  two..do...@te...
>  DotBeforeAt.@test.com
>
> The current QmailAdmin demo accepts all of these as "valid" addresses.
>
> On my own server, running QmailAdmin 1.2.10, I was able to successfully
> send mail to two out of the three addresses. The leading dot failed to let the
> mail through to one of the formats:
>
>  .lea...@te...

Sorry, our current version is 1.2.0 (not 1.2.10). And to clarify, this
is the error message received:

  <.lea...@ou...>:
  12.161.105.148 does not like recipient.
  Remote host said: 511 sorry, no mailbox here by that name (#5.1.1 - chkuser)

Maybe this implies that a bug is elsewhere.

> That seems like a bug in QmailAdmin: If I can create the address, I
> should be able to send mail through it. If the address format is not
> valid, I shouldn't be able to create it.
>
> What are opinions of the experts here: Which if any of these
> patterns should be treated as valid e-mail addresses? 
>
> The all look like mistakes, but my testing with QmailAdmin revealed
> that two of these formats actually can work "in the world" regardless
> of the RFC.