4 ms·

/@/ usually does the job for me... hehe

allegory 12y ago
I use a slightly more complex variation of that: ^.+@.+\..+$ Works wonders. I think when testing the addresses on a sign up form, we got only 0.5% that we couldn't relay too which was a pretty good hit rate.
- paulnechifor 12y ago
  It looks to me like you're neglecting email addresses from <http://ai./> http://ai./>. The 'ai' TLD does have an MX record.
  - allegory 12y ago
    Yes; I get told that every time I mention it :-)
- tragomaskhalos 12y ago
  I would suspect that anyone whose email did not match that regex would have such a miserable time generally getting it rejected as invalid left right and centre that they would just cave in and get a simpler one that did.
- TezzellEnt 12y ago
  That's pretty good. I learned from Rails Tutorial to use this one: /\A[\w+\-.]+@[a-z\d\-.]+\.[a-z]+\z/i It's worked for me when I needed to use it.
  - PinguTS 12y ago
    Hope you don't have international customers, because http://äöüß.de http://äöüß.de is a totally legal domain these days.
    - allegory 12y ago
      Very true. My simplified one on the parent comment of that one makes no attempt to involve Unicode or character ranges for precisely that reason!
szatkus 12y ago
Unfortunately many devs try to be smarter and my something+website_name@gmail.com is usually rejected as incorrect :/
- hackerboos 12y ago
  This a pain because gmail allows you to append anything you want after the + and it will still reach your inbox. For example - If your email address is johnsmith@gmail.com you can have mail sent to johnsmith+stopspamming@gmail.com and it will go into your inbox. http://lifehacker.com/144397/instant-disposable-gmail-addresses http://lifehacker.com/144397/instant-disposable-gmail-addres...
- bowlofpetunias 12y ago
  Ironically, after many years this is still being rejected as incorrect by the Google Apps admin dashboard for Groups...
sigsergv 12y ago
My regexp: [^@]+@[^@]+
- mike-cardwell 12y ago
  That fails on the perfectly valid email address: "Foo@bar"@example.com Although if that's your email address, you deserve everything you get ;) If you want to verify if an email address is valid, just ask your mail server if it is capable of sending mail to it: root@flan:~# /usr/sbin/sendmail -bv '"Foo@bar"@example.com' "Foo@bar"@example.com verified root@flan:~#
  - dasil003 12y ago
    Does it fail? I don't see ^ or $.
    - mike-cardwell 12y ago
      I assumed it was anchored and he missed those off.
    - ht_th 12y ago
      The regexp looks for exactly one '@'-character preceded and followed by at least one character that's not an '@'-character. Or, in other words, it does not allow for an email address with more than one '@'-character.
      - rplnt 12y ago
        The point of the post was that since the regexp doesn't include start or end of a string it would still succeed: "Foo@bar"@example.com -> "Foo@bar"
  - sigsergv 12y ago
    I don't need those “perfectly valid” email addresses. Person who create such addresses potentially dangerous.
- deleted 12y ago

I use a slightly more complex variation of that: ^.+@.+\..+$ Works wonders. I think when testing the addresses on a sign up form, we got only 0.5% that we couldn't relay too which was a pretty good hit rate.

paulnechifor 12y ago
It looks to me like you're neglecting email addresses from <http://ai./> http://ai./>. The 'ai' TLD does have an MX record.
- allegory 12y ago
  Yes; I get told that every time I mention it :-)
tragomaskhalos 12y ago
I would suspect that anyone whose email did not match that regex would have such a miserable time generally getting it rejected as invalid left right and centre that they would just cave in and get a simpler one that did.
TezzellEnt 12y ago
That's pretty good. I learned from Rails Tutorial to use this one: /\A[\w+\-.]+@[a-z\d\-.]+\.[a-z]+\z/i It's worked for me when I needed to use it.
- PinguTS 12y ago
  Hope you don't have international customers, because http://äöüß.de http://äöüß.de is a totally legal domain these days.
  - allegory 12y ago
    Very true. My simplified one on the parent comment of that one makes no attempt to involve Unicode or character ranges for precisely that reason!

szatkus 12y ago

Unfortunately many devs try to be smarter and my something+website_name@gmail.com is usually rejected as incorrect :/

hackerboos 12y ago
This a pain because gmail allows you to append anything you want after the + and it will still reach your inbox. For example - If your email address is johnsmith@gmail.com you can have mail sent to johnsmith+stopspamming@gmail.com and it will go into your inbox. http://lifehacker.com/144397/instant-disposable-gmail-addresses http://lifehacker.com/144397/instant-disposable-gmail-addres...
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
Ironically, after many years this is still being rejected as incorrect by the Google Apps admin dashboard for Groups...

sigsergv 12y ago

My regexp: [^@]+@[^@]+

mike-cardwell 12y ago
That fails on the perfectly valid email address: "Foo@bar"@example.com Although if that's your email address, you deserve everything you get ;) If you want to verify if an email address is valid, just ask your mail server if it is capable of sending mail to it: root@flan:~# /usr/sbin/sendmail -bv '"Foo@bar"@example.com' "Foo@bar"@example.com verified root@flan:~#
- dasil003 12y ago
  Does it fail? I don't see ^ or $.
  - mike-cardwell 12y ago
    I assumed it was anchored and he missed those off.
  - ht_th 12y ago
    The regexp looks for exactly one '@'-character preceded and followed by at least one character that's not an '@'-character. Or, in other words, it does not allow for an email address with more than one '@'-character.
    - rplnt 12y ago
      The point of the post was that since the regexp doesn't include start or end of a string it would still succeed: "Foo@bar"@example.com -> "Foo@bar"
- sigsergv 12y ago
  I don't need those “perfectly valid” email addresses. Person who create such addresses potentially dangerous.
deleted 12y ago