Here’s a very good reference on the topic: http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html
On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > 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 >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> >> >
