Hi,
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 19:26:11 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> >It looks like Mail_RFC822::isValidInetAddress has the same problem with
> >not recognizing '+' as valid
>
> Have you thought about reporting that as a bug and/or contributing a
> better version? Testing for valid e
Bob wrote:
>Suggested change (incorporating everything above):
>
>if( eregi( "[EMAIL PROTECTED]([-
>.]?[0-9a-z])*\\.[a-z]{2,6}$", $email, $check ))
While playing around with this, I noticed that it does not accept
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
as a valid email address, while the old/current regexp
Bob wrote:
>It looks like Mail_RFC822::isValidInetAddress has the same problem with
>not recognizing '+' as valid
Have you thought about reporting that as a bug and/or contributing a
better version? Testing for valid email addresses is a pretty standard
task in a web-based application. I had actu
Hi,
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:20:21 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> >[Sorry if this isn't the right list for posting bugs/enhancements...]
>
> Didn't see the "Report a bug" link on geeklog.net? But it's okay to
> discuss problems here or on the forums before actually sending bug rep
Bob wrote:
>[Sorry if this isn't the right list for posting bugs/enhancements...]
Didn't see the "Report a bug" link on geeklog.net? But it's okay to
discuss problems here or on the forums before actually sending bug reports.
>The upshot is, COM_isemail in lib-common.php chokes on addresses
>co
