Re^2: Mail::Verify or Mail::CheckUser for Email Verification?

+ + on the rest of the post,
...but Fie! on your use of that wikipedia article as an athoritative source of legitimate ("trustworthy?") webmail providers because

webmail (meaning a mail service accessed via a browser) doesn't even enter OP's spec
and
that list deals only with a few prominent providers, whereas many (most?) ISP's provide a webmails option in addition to POP3 and/or IMAP.

Note that I have no quarrel with the recommendation to "reject any suspicious/uncommon email providers." But defining either "suspicious" or "uncommon" with any particularity is going to be a major challenge, colored by personal experience and taste (sorta' like the Supreme Court Justice's comment re porn: "I know it when I see it."

Comment on Re^2: Mail::Verify or Mail::CheckUser for Email Verification?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Mail::Verify or Mail::CheckUser for Email Verification? by desemondo (Hermit) on Jul 07, 2010 at 22:28 UTC
webmail (meaning a mail service accessed via a browser) doesn't even enter OP's spec yes, I know. That was my main point. the OP didn't appear to have even identified exactly what they wanted to do or what requirements they needed to work within. But defining either "suspicious" or "uncommon" with any particularity is going to be a major challenge Agreed. The wiki link was intended to get the OP thinking about such possibilities, not as a conclusive list for making that decision. (I do admit my post was a little ambiguous on that point. )	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: Mail::Verify or Mail::CheckUser for Email Verification?
by desemondo (Hermit) on Jul 07, 2010 at 22:28 UTC

webmail (meaning a mail service accessed via a browser) doesn't even enter OP's spec

But defining either "suspicious" or "uncommon" with any particularity is going to be a major challenge

[reply]