I take issue! ;) Kevin simply asked to his regex working with an apostrophie. My answer did that. He didn't ask for the be-all-end-all of email validators.
Now, as to the rest of your comment and blog post, I'm in agreement. It's rarely done correctly. (Not accounting for plus addressing often annoys me.) However, writing an RFC compliant parser is quite possible and someone should probably do it. However, trying to build something that would work 100% out in the wild would probably be futile. On 2/24/13 11:12 AM, Adam Cameron wrote: >> This seems to work, no? > No. It doesn't allow for quite a number of completely legit characters, > notably the + sign (which is very common), amongst others. That said, this > is the fault of the original regex, not your fix for it. > > My feedback on this got too long for a response here, so I wrote it up on > my blog: > http://adamcameroncoldfusion.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/email-address-validation-1-in-series.html > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:354668 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
