On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, John Tobey wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 06:26:56PM -0500, Chris Devers wrote:
> >
> > The short of it is, if you can get away with it, to *never* use these
> > anywhere in your programs (and by proxy to that, don't use modules
> > that use these constructs, such as
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 06:26:56PM -0500, Chris Devers wrote:
>
> The short of it is, if you can get away with it, to *never* use these
> anywhere in your programs (and by proxy to that, don't use modules that
> use these constructs, such as Carp.pm or English.pm). This is based on the
English
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 06:27:15PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "BR" == Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> BR>I would like to point out that your code can be improved by replacing
> BR>uses of $& and $` with parentheses in the regexes followed by $1 and
> BR>$2.
> "BR" == Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BR>I would like to point out that your code can be improved by replacing
BR>uses of $& and $` with parentheses in the regexes followed by $1 and
BR>$2. This is from the Devel::SawAmpersand doc . . .
BR> I was unaware of
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Bob Rogers wrote:
>From: John Tobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I would like to point out that your code can be improved by replacing
>uses of $& and $` with parentheses in the regexes followed by $1 and
>$2. This is from the Devel::SawAmpersand doc . . .
>
> I
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:16:32PM -0500, Bob Rogers wrote:
>Also, I've attached a code fragment I wrote to validate email address
> syntax.
Thanks very much for the code sample and link to Bernstein's great RFC
822 info site.
I would like to point out that your code can be improved by
Sorry I took so long to get back, I was at an interview
> > I don't see how '*@*.aol.*' can match '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
> > How do you account for the first '.' in the match expression?
>
> For that matter, can a regular expression validly begin with "*" at all?
> What does that mean?
>
> And why
From: "Wizard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:35:11 -0500
> Here's another one: future proofing. The two or three character TLD
> constraint you see today isn't necessary, and maybe in the future we'll
> see longer addresses ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Or Rendezvous
>
> I don't see how '*@*.aol.*' can match '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
> How do you account for the first '.' in the match expression?
By splitting it into @cnames, $domain, $tld and $cc, so that (pseudocode):
$user_cc eq $cc? if $cc
$user_tld eq $tld?
$user_domain eq $domain?
and
foreach( @user_cnames )
* Ron Newman [2003-02-11 12:42]:
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 12:23 PM, Gyepi SAM wrote:
> > I don't see how '*@*.aol.*' can match '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'. How do you
> > account for the first '.' in the match expression?
>
> For that matter, can a regular expression validly begin with "*"
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 12:23 PM, Gyepi SAM wrote:
I don't see how '*@*.aol.*' can match '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
How do you account for the first '.' in the match expression?
For that matter, can a regular expression validly begin with "*" at all?
What does that mean?
And why would
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:10:51AM -0500, Wizard wrote:
> Here's an example that I just sent to the NMS list:
>
> I want it to be universal. For instance, how would you parse this:
> *@*.aol.*
>
> into:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It should match the
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:12:28AM -0500, darren chamberlain wrote:
> * Stephen Reppucci [2003-02-11 11:00]:
> > Except for one thing: you'll want to swap those first two statements
> > in the for loop -- otherwise you'll end up escaping your regex '.'s
> > that replaced the wildcard '*'s...
>
>
> Did you volunteer for this? Did anyone laugh when you spoke up?
Just in my head. They're always laughing at me. What? I couldn't KILL HER...
Grant M. (& Co.)
___
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:56:00AM -0500, Wizard wrote:
> Yes, it's something very like that. I've already used it on IP address
> filtering.
What sort of address filtering are you doing? Take a look at Net::CIDR
which is Really Useful when dealing with address ranges.
--
Grand Inquisitor
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, darren chamberlain wrote:
> > *@aol.*
> > *@*.parliment.uk
> > fred@*.sourceforge.*
> > etc.
>
> Hmm, nice:
>
> # Assume @addrs is the above list:
> for (my $i = 0; $i < @addrs; $i++) {
> $addrs[$i] =~ s/\*/.*/g;
> $addrs[$i] =~ s/\./\\./g;
> $addrs[$i]
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 15:49, darren chamberlain wrote:
> * Simon Wilcox [2003-02-11 10:47]:
> > We can actually use CPAN modules (as long as they are pure perl) but
> > we need to distribute them as part of the code.
>
> Well, then, bundle in Email::Valid, because it's wonderful, and is (more
>
> > Here's another one: future proofing. The two or three character TLD
> > constraint you see today isn't necessary, and maybe in the
> future we'll
> > see longer addresses ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Or
> Rendezvous
> > might catch on, and addresses of the form
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] might become
> >
> dude- the nightmare is only beginning ...
Would that be "Nightmare on /usr/bin/elm Street"?
;-)
Grant M.
___
Boston-pm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
* Simon Wilcox [2003-02-11 10:47]:
> We can actually use CPAN modules (as long as they are pure perl) but
> we need to distribute them as part of the code.
Well, then, bundle in Email::Valid, because it's wonderful, and is (more
or less) the definitive way to do what it does.
(darren)
--
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 10:28:17AM -0500, Wizard wrote:
> David Cantrell wrote:
> > Yes, anything in .us.
> Meaning, CNAMES*.DOAMIN.us? Or CNAMES*.DOMAIN.TLD.us? Or both?
Oh .us is FUN. You have, IIRC:
just_about_anything_the_crack_monkeys_can_think_of.state_abbr.us;
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 15:31, Ron Newman wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 10:04 AM, Wizard wrote:
> >
> >> i'd think there are several things on CPAN you can use.
> >
> > I Can't use any modules not in a standard 5.0004(?) distribution; the
> > script
> > is for NMS
> Here's another one: future proofing. The two or three character TLD
> constraint you see today isn't necessary, and maybe in the future we'll
> see longer addresses ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Or Rendezvous
> might catch on, and addresses of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] might become
> common in some
* Wizard [2003-02-11 10:17]:
> > Why not use Email::Valid?
>
> As I said in another email, this is for NMS, so I can't use anything that
> doesn't come with the standard 5.0004(?) perl.
Ah, I see. OK, then, I have a small module (Email.pm) that rips off
from Email::Valid (I think, or it might
> > 2.> Do email addresses ever have port numbers appended, like this:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:24
> >
>
> I don't think so. Which port would they use? The SMTP port? The POP3
> port? IMAP? Could you have the same email address with different
> mailboxes if you used the IMAP vs POP3 port?
> What's non-standard about it? (apart from the spelling)
Sorry, "not-typical".
> Indeed it's not typical, but it is standard in that it has all the right
> records in all the right places like the DNS*. And yes, PLENTY of other
> countries have longword.cc-style domains. France, for instance,
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 09:42:59AM -0500, Wizard wrote:
> I'm writing a script to do email filtering, and I have some questions:
> 1.> These are all valid email address:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <- this is valid, but not standard
What's
27 matches
Mail list logo
