 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gaetano Mendola [mailto:mendola@bigfoot.com] 
> Sent: 17 May 2004 16:02
> To: Bruno Wolff III
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Email data type
> 
> 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

Why? What's wrong with private addresses?

Regards, Dave.

Mon, 17 May 2004 16:19:04 +0100
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: Email data type
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dave Page wrote:
|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: Gaetano Mendola [mailto:mendola@bigfoot.com]
|>Sent: 17 May 2004 16:02
|>To: Bruno Wolff III
|>Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
|>Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Email data type
|>
|>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
|
|
| Why? What's wrong with private addresses?

Well I think that accept an email like:

gmendola@192.168.212.2

is a risky.

It's true that any RFC forbid this kind of emails,
so I can accept it and leave to the final user the
opportunity to extract the domain an validate it.


Regards
Gaetano Mendola











-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAqOHm7UpzwH2SGd4RAp4dAJwNqDSws1cVwKr/QMXG/JvV/8M94QCbBfIS
alixKQYe/VoLpwXrBFHszDs=
=BAML
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Mon, 17 May 2004 18:01:43 +0200
Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com>
Re: Email data type
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 18:01:43 +0200,
  Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Well I think that accept an email like:
> 
> gmendola@192.168.212.2

Be careful about this. gmendola@192.168.212.2 is not the same as
gmendola@[192.168.212.2] . 

Mon, 17 May 2004 14:31:40 -0500
Bruno Wolff III <bruno@wolff.to>
Re: Email data type
Bruno Wolff III wrote:

>On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 18:01:43 +0200,
>  Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Well I think that accept an email like:
>>
>>gmendola@192.168.212.2
>>    
>>
>
>Be careful about this. gmendola@192.168.212.2 is not the same as
>gmendola@[192.168.212.2] . 
>
>  
>

Not wanting to rain on this fascinating parade, but shouldn't this 
discussion be carried out on a mailing list for the pgfoundry emailadt 
project? (pgfoundry mailing lists were a bit broken but I think they are 
fixed now).

cheers

andrew







Bruno Wolff III wrote:

On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 18:01:43 +0200,
  Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com> wrote:
  

Well I think that accept an email like:

gmendola@192.168.212.2
    


Be careful about this. gmendola@192.168.212.2 is not the same as
gmendola@[192.168.212.2] . 

  


Not wanting to rain on this fascinating parade, but shouldn't this
discussion be carried out on a mailing list for the pgfoundry emailadt
project? (pgfoundry mailing lists were a bit broken but I think they
are fixed now).

cheers

andrew
Mon, 17 May 2004 16:06:10 -0400
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: Email data type