This is an excellent article on the traps to beware of when regex'ing email address formats
http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html This may ignite a debate though :) I favour this variation... [a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+(?:\.[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+)*@(?:[a- z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?\.)+(?:[A-Z]{2}|com|org|net|gov|mil|biz| info|mobi|name|aero|jobs|museum)\b C On Aug 7, 8:25 am, Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:22 AM, mdipierro wrote: > > > > > I will take a patch for this. > > If nobody else gets to it first, I'll work up a patch over the weekend. > > > > > > > Massimo > > > On Aug 7, 1:33 am, Jonathan Lundell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:32 PM, DenesL wrote: > > >>> IS_EMAIL does not follow the RFC specs for valid email addresses > >>> (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address) > > >>> even a simple [email protected] fails > > >>> it is kinda late to work on the regex now, maybe tomorrow. > > >> The RFC is fairly hard to validate. If that's what we really want, I > >> found this one on the web that looks about right: > > >> ^(?!\.)("([^"\r\\]|\\["\r\\])*"|([-a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~]|(?...@[a- > >> z0-9][\w\.-]*[a-z0-9]\.[a-z][a-z\.]*[a-z]$ > > >> It assumes the case-insensitive flag. > > >>http://haacked.com/archive/2007/08/21/i-knew-how-to-validate-an- > >> email... > > >> Overkill? Or, what the heck? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
