Re: [android-developers] Email formate validation

2011-10-06 Thread Jim Graham
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 07:06:36PM +0530, Devendran Raju wrote: I want to validate of email formate in my app. Anyone having sample code for that. Start with RFC 822. Later, --jim -- THE SCORE: ME: 2 CANCER: 0 73 DE N5IAL (/4)| Peter da Silva: No, try rm -rf /

Re: [android-developers] Email formate validation

2011-10-06 Thread Kostya Vasilyev
RFC 822 has been obsolted by 2822... But a more relevant issue is that not all email addresses in the real world (tm) are RFC compliant (just like email processing, in general). I'd recommend going with a more forgiving validation than one strictly based on RFC BNFs. Googling for email

Re: [android-developers] Email formate validation

2011-10-06 Thread Jim Graham
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 12:02:03AM +0400, Kostya Vasilyev wrote: RFC 822 has been obsolted by 2822... True, but it's a good start, at least for the basics. That's why I said to START with RFC-822. At least, I think that's how I left it when I exited out of vim. But a more relevant issue

Re: [android-developers] Email formate validation

2011-10-06 Thread Latimerius
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com wrote: Follow standards to be safe.  Ignore them at your own risk.  It's that simple. While I agree it should be like this I will say Kostya has a point here. Five years ago I worked on an e-mail parser for an antivirus package.

Re: [android-developers] Email formate validation

2011-10-06 Thread Jim Graham
On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 10:56:16PM +0200, Latimerius wrote: On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Jim Graham spooky1...@gmail.com wrote: Follow standards to be safe. ?Ignore them at your own risk. ?It's that simple. While I agree it should be like this I will say Kostya has a point here. Five

Re: [android-developers] Email formate validation

2011-10-06 Thread Bob Kerns
Re: But a more relevant issue is that not all email addresses in the real world (tm) are RFC compliant (just like email processing, in general). I'd recommend going with a more forgiving validation than one strictly based on RFC BNFs. As someone long involved in this, going back to RFC733