Absolutely mate. I did make sure to point that out: > That said, this > is the fault of the original regex, not your fix for it.
(Yes, I did see the smiley too though ;-) On 25 February 2013 15:00, .jonah <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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:354672 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/unsubscribe.cfm
