Re^3: On Validating Email Addresses

What?! Email::Valid fails on embedded comments? That's an astonishingly common feature of actual email addresses in the wild. I managed a number of public inboxes for a global corporation for a few years and I had to take special care in my own email address parsing code (in a VB dialect) to handle comments.

I mean, of the form (Fname Lname) <addr@example.com> and <addr@example.com> (Fname Lname). I never saw addr@example( ... ).com. Of those three forms, which are supported? Anything good will handle the first two and I don't think the third matters. I'm speaking only from what I saw in actual usage.

Comment on Re^3: On Validating Email Addresses Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: On Validating Email Addresses (s/embed/nest/) by tye (Sage) on Jan 05, 2005 at 06:51 UTC
`s/embedded/nested/g` The regex doesn't handle comments nested inside of comments. It does handle comments (one level deep only). - tye	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: On Validating Email Addresses (s/embed/nest/) by diotalevi (Canon) on Jan 05, 2005 at 07:08 UTC
I don't think I ever saw nested comments. Thanks for clarifying.	[reply]
Re^4: On Validating Email Addresses by hardburn (Abbot) on Jan 05, 2005 at 14:36 UTC
Besdies tye's point below, I don't think it matters much in common usage of Email::Valid, anyway. I've only used it for validating form input, and I imagine this tends to be the most common case. How often do you type `(Fname Lname) <addr@example.com>` into a form? I always just type the address alone. "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: On Validating Email Addresses by diotalevi (Canon) on Jan 05, 2005 at 19:25 UTC
Ok, so you won't type that into a form. Your email client will happily give that string to me and its still subject to validity tests. Email::Valid should handle addresses as generated by backend systems and not just what people are likely to type into a text box.	[reply]


Think about Loose Coupling
	PerlMonks