Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of tc@extravision.com designates
 193.133.125.8 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <53D9FEDD.8040408@extravision.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 09:31:25 +0100
From: Tom Chiverton <tc@extravision.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
References: <1406027265738-39263.post@n4.nabble.com>
 <32F3590C-BA7B-4497-A20A-F935694A2D79@classsoftware.com>
 <53CE4C03.9020800@extravision.com>
 <01533518-A78C-4389-B7D9-FA7012B3BAAA@classsoftware.com>
 <53CE5954.4020101@extravision.com> <CFF3D002.286A1%aharui@adobe.com>
 <A1CFE946-A9E7-48EE-8994-B6055C9E1A2A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <A1CFE946-A9E7-48EE-8994-B6055C9E1A2A@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------040000070704020101000902"

--------------040000070704020101000902
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I've raised a Jira for this issue :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34450

Tom

On 22/07/14 17:43, Harbs wrote:
> Here�s a very good reference on the topic:
> http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html
>
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> We should do both, at some point.
>>
>> On 7/22/14 5:30 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc@extravision.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we have two choices, either validate to the spec ( RFC 5322,
>>> like http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html ) or use
>>> something more relaxed.
>>>
>>> By more relaxed I mean split('@').length==2 &&
>>> split('@')[1].split('.').length>1
>>> As Wikipedia says "Syntactically correct, verified email addresses do
>>> not guarantee email box existence"
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Validation_and_verification).
>>>
>>> Much like how the zip/post code validator doesn't tell you if an address
>>> exists or not ?
>>> But would we then have to explain ourselves a lot on users@ ?
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 22/07/14 13:22, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>>> HI,
>>>>
>>>>> Does any one know why it isn't just using the proper regular
>>>>> expression ?
>>>> Because there is no regular expression that validates all email
>>>> addresses and even if it did they can still be invalid. See [1] for a
>>>> good discussion - and some scary regular expressions.
>>>>
>>>> Justin
>>>>
>>>> 1. 
>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/201323/using-a-regular-expression-to-v
>>>> alidate-an-email-address/1917982#1917982
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>>> service.
>>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>


--------------040000070704020101000902--