Jacob Fugal wrote:
> 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].

Possibly. Still, I prefer a simple solution over a complicated one. What 
type of errors do you hope to catch with this huge regex? Typing errors? 
Deliberately entered rubbish? The regex accepts just about anything with 
a "@", e.g. "$@$".

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.