Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Installing Email::Valid

by neilwatson (Curate)
on Sep 29, 2003 at 17:12 UTC ( #295042=perlquestion: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??
neilwatson has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I'm trying to install Email::Valid on a Redhat 9 box. This is the result:
CPAN.pm: Going to build M/MA/MAURICE/Email-Valid-0.15.tar.gz Checking if your kit is complete... Looks good Writing Makefile for Email::Valid cp Valid.pm blib/lib/Email/Valid.pm Manifying blib/man3/Email::Valid.3pm /usr/bin/make -- OK Running make test PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl "-MExtUtils::Command::MM" "-e" "test_h +arness(0, 'blib/lib', 'blib/arch')" t/*.t t/valid....FAILED test 10 + Failed 1/12 tests, 91.67% okay Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- +--------- t/valid.t 12 1 8.33% 10 Failed 1/1 test scripts, 0.00% okay. 1/12 subtests failed, 91.67% okay +. make: *** [test_dynamic] Error 29 /usr/bin/make test -- NOT OK Running make install make test had returned bad status, won't install without force

I've contacted the maintainer but have not heard from them, at all. Has anyone experienced this?

Neil Watson
watson-wilson.ca

Comment on Installing Email::Valid
Download Code
Re: Installing Email::Valid
by perrin (Chancellor) on Sep 29, 2003 at 17:20 UTC
    The information you've provided here is not going to allow anyone to help you. You need to at least give the actual error message, which you can get by running t/valid.t by hand. You should also provide your platform and version of Perl.
Re: Installing Email::Valid
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Sep 29, 2003 at 17:21 UTC
    Yes, I ran into this last week. Test #10 is a test about top-level domain validation. This is a feature that is turned off by default. The test determines if you have a certain module installed. If you don't, then it runs tests 9 and 10. I don't know why test 10 fails, but it does. I have it running in a CGI right now and it's running fine. (Then again, I'm not using TLD validation, either.)

    ------
    We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

    The idea is a little like C++ templates, except not quite so brain-meltingly complicated. -- TheDamian, Exegesis 6

    Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.

Re: Installing Email::Valid
by tachyon (Chancellor) on Sep 30, 2003 at 01:42 UTC

    This is test 10:

    $v->address( -address => 'blort@notarealdomainfoo.com', -mxcheck => 1) ? not_ok : ok;

    As you can see this address is expected to fail the mxcheck on 'notarealdomainfoo.com'. This FAILS TO FAIL because this is now a valid domain with A and MX records - blame Verisign!

    Bottom line don't worry about it. Change the test to 'blort@surely-no-one-has-registered-this-hopefully-no-existsant-domain-flubber-dubber-doo' and it sould fail, but then again you never know!

    [root@devel3 root]# dig -tA notarealdomainfoo.com ; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> -tA notarealdomainfoo.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 21892 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: + 13 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;notarealdomainfoo.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: notarealdomainfoo.com. 900 IN A 64.94.110.11 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: com. 68041 IN NS e.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS i.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS k.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS b.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS l.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS c.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS d.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS g.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS m.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS j.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS a.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS f.gtld-servers.net. com. 68041 IN NS h.gtld-servers.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: e.gtld-servers.net. 134007 IN A 192.12.94.30 i.gtld-servers.net. 150216 IN A 192.43.172.30 k.gtld-servers.net. 150216 IN A 192.52.178.30 b.gtld-servers.net. 150216 IN A 192.33.14.30 l.gtld-servers.net. 78864 IN A 192.41.162.30 c.gtld-servers.net. 150216 IN A 192.26.92.30 d.gtld-servers.net. 150216 IN A 192.31.80.30 g.gtld-servers.net. 147680 IN A 192.42.93.30 m.gtld-servers.net. 150216 IN A 192.55.83.30 j.gtld-servers.net. 150216 IN A 192.48.79.30 a.gtld-servers.net. 72621 IN A 192.5.6.30 f.gtld-servers.net. 86057 IN A 192.35.51.30 h.gtld-servers.net. 126375 IN A 192.54.112.30 ;; Query time: 23 msec ;; SERVER: 207.218.192.38#53(207.218.192.38) ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 30 01:37:27 2003 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 508 [root@devel3 root]# dig -tMX notarealdomainfoo.com ; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> -tMX notarealdomainfoo.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 15188 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: +0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;notarealdomainfoo.com. IN MX ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: com. 172800 IN SOA a.gtld-servers.net. ns +tld.verisign-grs.com. 2003092901 1800 900 604800 86400 ;; Query time: 43 msec ;; SERVER: 207.218.192.38#53(207.218.192.38) ;; WHEN: Tue Sep 30 01:37:32 2003 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 112 [root@devel3 root]#

    cheers

    tachyon

    s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print

      ..just another casualty of Verisign's greed..

      cheers,

      J

        Yup. I wonder who will buy that domain!

        cheers

        tachyon

        s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print

      <BEGIN RANT>
      May the cursed bean-counters at VeriSign grow hives on their various anatomical parts!

      Who knows how much validity / sanity check code they have broken with their money-grubbing scheme? One of the most useful (to people who deal with email registration issues) modules now doesn't work quite right. Great! I've always disabled the SMTP authentication (too much overhead for large lists), and relied on all of the other checks to filter out a majority of the bad addresses. This will certainly reduce the effectiveness of the module for me.

      Not to mention every other program that has ever been written to check for domain validity is probably now broken. But to break perl modules! The inhumanity!!!

      <END RANT>


      -HZ

        How stupid is this.....

        [root@devel3 cgi-bin]# dig may-the-cursed-bean-counters-at-verisign-gr +ow-hives.com ; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> may-the-cursed-bean-counters-at-verisign-grow-hi +ves.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 7959 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: + 12 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;may-the-cursed-bean-counters-at-verisign-grow-hives.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: may-the-cursed-bean-counters-at-verisign-grow-hives.com. 900 IN A 64.9 +4.110.11

        As you say they have now trashed all email domain validation. But there appears to be a workaround:

        [root@devel3 cgi-bin]# dig do-not-adjust-your-mind-there-is-a-fault-in +-reality.com ; <<>> DiG 9.2.2 <<>> do-not-adjust-your-mind-there-is-a-fault-in-real +ity.com ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 7723 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL: + 9 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;do-not-adjust-your-mind-there-is-a-fault-in-reality.com. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: do-not-adjust-your-mind-there-is-a-fault-in-reality.com. 900 IN A 64.9 +4.110.11

        All these non-exitants seem to resolve to a single server so you ought to be able to patch for that (until they break it again)

        cheers

        tachyon

        s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: perlquestion [id://295042]
Approved by jdtoronto
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others studying the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-12-27 16:33 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Is guessing a good strategy for surviving in the IT business?





    Results (177 votes), past polls