CDO issue with badmail

Hi,

Usually when I setup a web form with CDO I either set the "From" field
in the email to either:

1. The email address of the person filling out the form, in which case
user errors often result in the mail getting stuck in the badmail folder
and not being sent

2. An alias for the client (like mail@domain.com) to guarantee that it
gets delivered, but this is less convenient for the client as they can't
just reply-to the message, they have to manually change the address (not
a big deal, but annoying)


Is there another way to guarantee that even with a bad "from" address
scenario #1 will work every time? Or some other option I'm too dense to
have realized?


Thanks.

Re: CDO issue with badmail

the only test is to validate the email address before using it.



"Pupkin" wrote in message news:MPG.200ed293486f385989792@news.giganews.com...
> Hi,
>
> Usually when I setup a web form with CDO I either set the "From" field
> in the email to either:
>
> 1. The email address of the person filling out the form, in which case
> user errors often result in the mail getting stuck in the badmail folder
> and not being sent
>
> 2. An alias for the client (like mail@domain.com) to guarantee that it
> gets delivered, but this is less convenient for the client as they can't
> just reply-to the message, they have to manually change the address (not
> a big deal, but annoying)
>
>
> Is there another way to guarantee that even with a bad "from" address
> scenario #1 will work every time? Or some other option I'm too dense to
> have realized?
>
>
> Thanks.

Re: CDO issue with badmail

Is superficial validation enough (verifying email address format)? Or do
I need real validation?



In article <12qad49ajtsnf76@corp.supernews.com>, "Jon Paal" Paal @ everywhere dot com> says...
> the only test is to validate the email address before using it.
>
>
>
> "Pupkin" wrote in message news:MPG.200ed293486f385989792@news.giganews.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Usually when I setup a web form with CDO I either set the "From" field
> > in the email to either:
> >
> > 1. The email address of the person filling out the form, in which case
> > user errors often result in the mail getting stuck in the badmail folder
> > and not being sent
> >
> > 2. An alias for the client (like mail@domain.com) to guarantee that it
> > gets delivered, but this is less convenient for the client as they can't
> > just reply-to the message, they have to manually change the address (not
> > a big deal, but annoying)
> >
> >
> > Is there another way to guarantee that even with a bad "from" address
> > scenario #1 will work every time? Or some other option I'm too dense to
> > have realized?
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>
>

Re: CDO issue with badmail

Real validation can only be done by actually sending an email, or using a
component like the one that hexillion supplies
(http://hexillion.com/email_validation/).

A lot of sites simply ask users to input their email address twice, and
compare the two, which helps minimise typos. Then perform server-side
validation on the format of the address, then send an email to the submitted
address with a link that the user follows to finally confirm their
submission.

--
Mike Brind

"Pupkin" wrote in message
news:MPG.200ed848ddc5ad14989793@news.giganews.com...
> Is superficial validation enough (verifying email address format)? Or do
> I need real validation?
>
>
>
> In article <12qad49ajtsnf76@corp.supernews.com>, "Jon Paal" > Paal @ everywhere dot com> says...
>> the only test is to validate the email address before using it.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Pupkin" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.200ed293486f385989792@news.giganews.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Usually when I setup a web form with CDO I either set the "From" field
>> > in the email to either:
>> >
>> > 1. The email address of the person filling out the form, in which case
>> > user errors often result in the mail getting stuck in the badmail
>> > folder
>> > and not being sent
>> >
>> > 2. An alias for the client (like mail@domain.com) to guarantee that it
>> > gets delivered, but this is less convenient for the client as they
>> > can't
>> > just reply-to the message, they have to manually change the address
>> > (not
>> > a big deal, but annoying)
>> >
>> >
>> > Is there another way to guarantee that even with a bad "from" address
>> > scenario #1 will work every time? Or some other option I'm too dense to
>> > have realized?
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>>
>>
>>

Re: CDO issue with badmail

That's your call. You decide what is sufficient.




"Pupkin" wrote in message news:MPG.200ed848ddc5ad14989793@news.giganews.com...
> Is superficial validation enough (verifying email address format)? Or do
> I need real validation?
>
>
>
> In article <12qad49ajtsnf76@corp.supernews.com>, "Jon Paal" > Paal @ everywhere dot com> says...
>> the only test is to validate the email address before using it.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Pupkin" wrote in message news:MPG.200ed293486f385989792@news.giganews.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Usually when I setup a web form with CDO I either set the "From" field
>> > in the email to either:
>> >
>> > 1. The email address of the person filling out the form, in which case
>> > user errors often result in the mail getting stuck in the badmail folder
>> > and not being sent
>> >
>> > 2. An alias for the client (like mail@domain.com) to guarantee that it
>> > gets delivered, but this is less convenient for the client as they can't
>> > just reply-to the message, they have to manually change the address (not
>> > a big deal, but annoying)
>> >
>> >
>> > Is there another way to guarantee that even with a bad "from" address
>> > scenario #1 will work every time? Or some other option I'm too dense to
>> > have realized?
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>>
>>
>>

Re: CDO issue with badmail

I meant, is superficial validation of the "FROM" field enough to get CDO
to send the message.


> That's your call. You decide what is sufficient.
>
>
>
>
> "Pupkin" wrote in message news:MPG.200ed848ddc5ad14989793@news.giganews.com...
> > Is superficial validation enough (verifying email address format)? Or do
> > I need real validation?
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <12qad49ajtsnf76@corp.supernews.com>, "Jon Paal" > > Paal @ everywhere dot com> says...
> >> the only test is to validate the email address before using it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Pupkin" wrote in message news:MPG.200ed293486f385989792@news.giganews.com...
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Usually when I setup a web form with CDO I either set the "From" field
> >> > in the email to either:
> >> >
> >> > 1. The email address of the person filling out the form, in which case
> >> > user errors often result in the mail getting stuck in the badmail folder
> >> > and not being sent
> >> >
> >> > 2. An alias for the client (like mail@domain.com) to guarantee that it
> >> > gets delivered, but this is less convenient for the client as they can't
> >> > just reply-to the message, they have to manually change the address (not
> >> > a big deal, but annoying)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Is there another way to guarantee that even with a bad "from" address
> >> > scenario #1 will work every time? Or some other option I'm too dense to
> >> > have realized?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

Re: CDO issue with badmail

If it is a valid format, then CDO will attempt to send it. That does not mean the email address is real. See Mike's earlier answer
regarding confirming if addresses are real or simply a valid format.


"Pupkin" wrote in message news:MPG.200f047eb895f350989795@news.giganews.com...
>
>
> I meant, is superficial validation of the "FROM" field enough to get CDO
> to send the message.
>
>
>> That's your call. You decide what is sufficient.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Pupkin" wrote in message news:MPG.200ed848ddc5ad14989793@news.giganews.com...
>> > Is superficial validation enough (verifying email address format)? Or do
>> > I need real validation?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In article <12qad49ajtsnf76@corp.supernews.com>, "Jon Paal" >> > Paal @ everywhere dot com> says...
>> >> the only test is to validate the email address before using it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Pupkin" wrote in message news:MPG.200ed293486f385989792@news.giganews.com...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > Usually when I setup a web form with CDO I either set the "From" field
>> >> > in the email to either:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. The email address of the person filling out the form, in which case
>> >> > user errors often result in the mail getting stuck in the badmail folder
>> >> > and not being sent
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. An alias for the client (like mail@domain.com) to guarantee that it
>> >> > gets delivered, but this is less convenient for the client as they can't
>> >> > just reply-to the message, they have to manually change the address (not
>> >> > a big deal, but annoying)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there another way to guarantee that even with a bad "from" address
>> >> > scenario #1 will work every time? Or some other option I'm too dense to
>> >> > have realized?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

Re: CDO issue with badmail

>> A lot of sites simply ask users to input their email address twice

I wonder how many people just copy and paste. I know I do.

I have a feeling this is some wunderkind inspired idea that only annoys
people, who quickly find a way around the inconvenience. Can you imagine
this implementation in other devices, like entering a phone# twice before
you can press send on your phone?

Bob Lehmann


"Mike Brind" wrote in message
news:ONR67HPNHHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Real validation can only be done by actually sending an email, or using a
> component like the one that hexillion supplies
> (http://hexillion.com/email_validation/).
>
> A lot of sites simply ask users to input their email address twice, and
> compare the two, which helps minimise typos. Then perform server-side
> validation on the format of the address, then send an email to the
submitted
> address with a link that the user follows to finally confirm their
> submission.
>
> --
> Mike Brind
>
> "Pupkin" wrote in message
> news:MPG.200ed848ddc5ad14989793@news.giganews.com...
> > Is superficial validation enough (verifying email address format)? Or do
> > I need real validation?
> >
> >
> >
> > In article <12qad49ajtsnf76@corp.supernews.com>, "Jon Paal" > > Paal @ everywhere dot com> says...
> >> the only test is to validate the email address before using it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Pupkin" wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.200ed293486f385989792@news.giganews.com...
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Usually when I setup a web form with CDO I either set the "From"
field
> >> > in the email to either:
> >> >
> >> > 1. The email address of the person filling out the form, in which
case
> >> > user errors often result in the mail getting stuck in the badmail
> >> > folder
> >> > and not being sent
> >> >
> >> > 2. An alias for the client (like mail@domain.com) to guarantee that
it
> >> > gets delivered, but this is less convenient for the client as they
> >> > can't
> >> > just reply-to the message, they have to manually change the address
> >> > (not
> >> > a big deal, but annoying)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Is there another way to guarantee that even with a bad "from" address
> >> > scenario #1 will work every time? Or some other option I'm too dense
to
> >> > have realized?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: CDO issue with badmail

I copy and paste, but then I know how to type my email address(es). I also
know how to copy and paste. That sounds kind of obvious, but in my
experience, the people who are more likely to enter their email address
incorrectly _don't_ know how to copy and paste. They are also the kind of
people who don't know any of the following:

1. WHERE THEIR CAPS LOCK KEY IS
2. how to use their shift key
3. Clicking the "Submit" button sends the form
4. You only need to click a hyperlink once
5. If 3 lines are provided for address entry, you are not expected to put
the whole thing on one line

etc...

:)


"Bob Lehmann" wrote in message
news:Odn9uORNHHA.2236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> A lot of sites simply ask users to input their email address twice
>
> I wonder how many people just copy and paste. I know I do.
>
> I have a feeling this is some wunderkind inspired idea that only annoys
> people, who quickly find a way around the inconvenience. Can you imagine
> this implementation in other devices, like entering a phone# twice before
> you can press send on your phone?
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
>
> "Mike Brind" wrote in message
> news:ONR67HPNHHA.3288@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Real validation can only be done by actually sending an email, or using a
>> component like the one that hexillion supplies
>> (http://hexillion.com/email_validation/).
>>
>> A lot of sites simply ask users to input their email address twice, and
>> compare the two, which helps minimise typos. Then perform server-side
>> validation on the format of the address, then send an email to the
> submitted
>> address with a link that the user follows to finally confirm their
>> submission.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Brind
>>
>> "Pupkin" wrote in message
>> news:MPG.200ed848ddc5ad14989793@news.giganews.com...
>> > Is superficial validation enough (verifying email address format)? Or
>> > do
>> > I need real validation?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In article <12qad49ajtsnf76@corp.supernews.com>, "Jon Paal" >> > Paal @ everywhere dot com> says...
>> >> the only test is to validate the email address before using it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Pupkin" wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.200ed293486f385989792@news.giganews.com...
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > Usually when I setup a web form with CDO I either set the "From"
> field
>> >> > in the email to either:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. The email address of the person filling out the form, in which
> case
>> >> > user errors often result in the mail getting stuck in the badmail
>> >> > folder
>> >> > and not being sent
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. An alias for the client (like mail@domain.com) to guarantee that
> it
>> >> > gets delivered, but this is less convenient for the client as they
>> >> > can't
>> >> > just reply-to the message, they have to manually change the address
>> >> > (not
>> >> > a big deal, but annoying)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there another way to guarantee that even with a bad "from"
>> >> > address
>> >> > scenario #1 will work every time? Or some other option I'm too dense
> to
>> >> > have realized?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
>