On 1/4/06, Andreas S. <f / andreas-s.net> wrote:
> Tim Fletcher wrote:
> > By "error prone" do you mean that it won't detect addresses that don't
> > exist?
>
> No, I mean that it might declare some addresses invalid although they
> aren't.

You'll see from my comments in the original post[1] and in my reply to
David Black in the other thread[2] that this regex is indeed compliant
with a single, non-named address as defined by the RFC[3].

Jacob Fugal

[1] http://phantom.byu.edu/pipermail/uug-list/2004-January/009707.html
[2] [ruby-talk:174081]
[3] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html