From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Email data type |
Date: | 2004-05-17 19:30:12 |
Message-ID: | 20040517193012.GA24230@wolff.to |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 17:01:36 +0200,
Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Also the validator will validate emails in this form, if you are thinking to
> validate emails as:
>
> "Gaetano M. Public"(junior)<gmendola@(new account)bigfoot.com>
That appears to be an rfc 2822 address. RFC 2821 addresses are more limited
in that they can't have comments but still escape special characters.
>
> that are perfectly valid I think that it's a valid option to consider.
What you want to store depends on what you are going to do with the address.
If you don't need the comments, storing it as a local part and a domain
is probably best.
> About the domain literals, I think to validate it in the near future,
> rejecting private subnet according to this list:
>
> 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
> 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
> 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
> 169.254.0.0 -169.254.255.255
That would depend on whether or not sending to those addresses would make
sense in your case.
>
> I think I have to discard also the addresses with last octet equal to 256.
Email addresses are in ascii and hence bytes should only contain characters
with the codes 0 through 127.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-05-17 19:31:40 | Re: Email data type |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2004-05-17 19:18:26 | Re: Table Spaces |