On 08/19/2009 11:41 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Clemens" == Clemens Schwaighofer <clemens_schwaigho...@e-gra.co.jp>
>>>>>> writes:
>
> Clemens> Just in my opinion, this regex is completely too large. For basic
> Clemens> validating something like:
> Clemens>
> ^[A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~][A-Za-z0-9!#$%&'*+-\/=?^_`{|}~\.]{0,6...@[a-za-z0-9-]+(\.[a-zA-Z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-zA-Z]{2,4}){1}$
> Clemens> works very well
>
> Fails on ".mobile" TLD. Has a pointless {1} in it, which does
> absolutely nothing, providing that the creator of the regex was already
> missing a few clues.
>
> That's the problem with these kinds of regex... you test it on what
> you know, but you're not consulting the *actual* *internet* specifications
> (which have been readily available since the dawn of Internet time).
>
> Either use the regex I pointed to already, or stay with the simpler:
>
> /\...@.*\s/
>
> which will at least not deny anyone with a *perfectly legitimate* email
> address from making it into your system.
>
> Or, use your regex *only* in an *advice* category, with the ability
> for the user to say "yes, I'm really sure this is my address".
>
> Please, for the sake of the net, do the Right Thing here. This is
> what I'm arguing for. Anything less than that, and your code deserves
> to end up in thedailywtf.com as an example of what *not* to do.I am not going to defend any regex here, but in my opinion it helps on what I want to see in email addresses. Yes it fails on mobile, but I have not yet seen one. Probably the best thing is to test nothing at all. Just accept it ... -- [ Clemens Schwaighofer -----=====:::::~ ] [ IT Engineer/Web Producer/Planning ] [ E-Graphics Communications SP Digital ] [ 6-17-2 Ginza Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-8167, JAPAN ] [ Tel: +81-(0)3-3545-7706 Fax: +81-(0)3-3545-7343 ] [ http://www.e-gra.co.jp ]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
