Well you've at least shed some light on the theory behind it. It would seem then that you are more trying to catch typo's in peoples email addressess rather than stop evil doers. I still wonder if your assumption that it is better to do a sort of fake transaction early is better than just doing a real transaction with retries etc. It seems like you are then just trying to side step the RFC and skip any retry mechanisms when in fact there could be valid reason you couldn't send an email now and you would be able to 10 minutes later. In those cases you are now complaining to users with valid email addresses. It would seem then that you are going to get false positives for people with real addresses that are full and evil doers (although i know your goal wasn't to stop them at this point) can just pick random emails and get through. That's why I don't see the merit. the only point I can almost see is if you have such huge volume that the retries on invalid accounts would bring your mail server to its knees and I would guess the volume would have to be quite large to cause that, but then perhaps I am wrong.
In reply to Re^8: Yet Another E-mail Validation Question
by eric256
in thread Yet Another E-mail Validation Question
by tanger
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |