I think we have two choices, either validate to the spec ( RFC 5322,
like http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html ) or use
something more relaxed.
By more relaxed I mean split('@').length==2 &&
split('@')[1].split('.').length>1
As Wikipedia says "Syntactically correct, verified email addresses do
not guarantee email box existence"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Validation_and_verification).
Much like how the zip/post code validator doesn't tell you if an address
exists or not ?
But would we then have to explain ourselves a lot on users@ ?
Tom
On 22/07/14 13:22, Justin Mclean wrote:
> HI,
>
>> Does any one know why it isn't just using the proper regular expression ?
> Because there is no regular expression that validates all email addresses and
> even if it did they can still be invalid. See [1] for a good discussion - and
> some scary regular expressions.
>
> Justin
>
> 1.
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/201323/using-a-regular-expression-to-validate-an-email-address/1917982#1917982
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
