I would have had nothing to say at all if you had said that your interest was in regards to a "generic approach".

But you didn't, instead complaining about the imperfection of whats listed/stored and proposing that something be done about it.



>>SNIP
>>>
>>>I wrote an Address Standardization application for my former job at The Warren Group. We had several lookup tables and Streets table, which I believe we downloaded from Melissa...
>>
>>Do you not yet "get" that an address standardization is NOT (repeat: NOT) required HERE.
>>
>
>Jim,
>
>As I said already, I don't need your comments. I got everything long time ago (don't think me dumper than I am), I know, that the standardization is not required, but I'm asking about generic approaches. I just took this forum as an example. Yes, I can do some validation here, if I'd like, but I perfectly understand, that I would not be able to standardize addresses here, and it's not my goal. But I wanted to see the problem from theoretical stand point.
>
>Your distructive and insulting comments do not add values to the thread.
>
>>I wrote one too long ago, and you don't see me trying to push for one HERE.
>>
>>Relax and let some of the world unfold on its own!