As we all know ARPA is thet university network, funded by the government to build an information infrastructure that eventually became the internet we have today. But the standards for text messaging within the ARPA net have been added to over the years in order to accomodate ever expanding requirments.
For example I have read that a valid email needn't necessarily require anything before the @ symbol. The ARPA RFC specifically states that it does. But <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> can be just as valid as <@foo.bar.com> if the the domain resolves and the server is setup to parse from a catch all account named ''. Is this not true? If this is true then eregi(/^[a-z0-9]+/, $email ) wouldn't necessarily be valid. We could then say that eregi(/^[a-z0-9]*/, $email) is pointless becuase if nothing has to be there then there isn't any reason to look for it. And thus we return to the original assertion that ereg('@', $email) is the only way to know that the string is a properly formated email address. So why even validate that format beyond the most basic rules (@, length, and invalid characters)? The result of which is useless, unless the address is sendable, in which case the string format is irrelevant. -Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Miguel Cruz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kevin Stone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "PHP-general" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [PHP] eregi(mail) > On Fri, 10 May 2002, Kevin Stone wrote: > > I had always been suspicious about email validators so I did a big long > > search on Google about standard address formats. It turns out that aside > > from the @ symbol emails have no standard format whatsoever. So ereg('@', > > $email) is really the only functional email validator. > > There is a format. See: > > http://www.merit.edu/internet/documents/rfc/rfc0822.txt > > miguel > > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php