Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-19 Thread rbt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Does it really need to be a regular expression? Why not just write a > short function that breaks apart the input and validates each part? > > def IsEmail(addr): > 'Returns True if addr appears to be a valid email address' > > # we don't allow stuff like [EMAIL PROT

Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread Steven D'Aprano
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > rbt> re.compile('([EMAIL PROTECTED])') > rbt> re.compile(r'[EMAIL PROTECTED],4}') > rbt> re.compile('(\S+)@(\S+)') > > rbt> All of these will find email addys, but they also find other > rbt> things. > > I think the only way to decide if your regular

Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread rbt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Does it really need to be a regular expression? Why not just write a > short function that breaks apart the input and validates each part? > > def IsEmail(addr): > 'Returns True if addr appears to be a valid email address' > > # we don't allow stuff like [EMAIL PROT

Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread dave . brueck
Does it really need to be a regular expression? Why not just write a short function that breaks apart the input and validates each part? def IsEmail(addr): 'Returns True if addr appears to be a valid email address' # we don't allow stuff like [EMAIL PROTECTED]@biff.com if addr.count('@') !=

Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread rbt
Jim wrote: > There is a precise one in a Perl module, I believe. > http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html > Can you swipe that? > > Jim > I can swipe it... but it causes my head to explode. I get unbalanced paratheses errors when trying to make it work as a python re... it mak

Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread André Malo
* rbt wrote: > Is it possible to write an re that _only_ matches email addresses? No. The only way to check if the matched thing is a mail address is to send a mail and ask the supposed receiver whether he got it. The grammar in RFC 2822 nearly matches anything with an @ in it. So, how accurate

Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread skip
Jim> http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html Maybe Cafe Express could be convinced to put that on a t-shirt... Skip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread skip
rbt> re.compile('([EMAIL PROTECTED])') rbt> re.compile(r'[EMAIL PROTECTED],4}') rbt> re.compile('(\S+)@(\S+)') rbt> All of these will find email addys, but they also find other rbt> things. I think the only way to decide if your regular expression does what you want is to pro

Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread Todd Whiteman
OMG, that is so ugly :D Jim wrote: > There is a precise one in a Perl module, I believe. > http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html > Can you swipe that? > > Jim > > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread Jim
There is a precise one in a Perl module, I believe. http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html Can you swipe that? Jim -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

a more precise re for email addys

2006-01-18 Thread rbt
Is it possible to write an re that _only_ matches email addresses? I've been googling around and have found several examples on the Web, but all of them produce too many false positives... here are examples from Google that I've experimented with: re.compile('([EMAIL PROTECTED])') re.compile(r'