We should do both, at some point. On 7/22/14 5:30 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <t...@extravision.com> wrote:
>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-v >>alidate-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 >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >
