On 17-Aug-2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Ben Finney wrote: > > This has happened at at least a dozen sites recently. I'm getting > > really sick of this. Is everyone using the same frigging regex to > > "validate" email addresses? Well, whatever the cause, it's > > *wrong*. Please stop "validating" email addresses against a regex. > > I get that kind of crap everytime I try to use an extended email > address with a "+" in most "professionaly run and written corporate > sites"... That's just one of many types of valid address that et rejected by such boneheaded checks. > RFC2822 has the BNF for a valid email address. Anyone writing a > check must use THAT as a guide and accept 100% of what the RFC deems > valid (and reject 100% of what it deems as invalid, as well). Or go the sensible route, and stop checking for something as broad and complex as the RFC mail address specification, since that's what the MTA will do anyway. -- \ "I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have | `\ to." -- Elvis Aaron Presley (1935-1977) | _o__) | Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature