From: Jacob Fugal <lukfugl@...>
Date: 2006-01-06T02:03:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Email Address Regex

On 1/4/06, Andreas S. <f@andreas-s.net> wrote:
> Jacob Fugal wrote:
> > The only reason I defended the regex was because you claimed it was
> > invalid.
>
> I don't remember that. I dislike complex solutions like this Regex
> because they are error prone (as proved by your correction for Tim's
> rfc822.rb), I didn't claim yours was invalid.

Ok, checking back on the flow here, this is what I saw:

  [Jacob] Be careful with email validation via regex, it's harder than
  you might think: <example regex>

  [Andreas] It is trivial to create a formally correct address that
  makes absolutely no sense, so what's the point of doing such a
  complicated and *error-prone validation*?

  [Tim] By "error prone" do you mean that it won't detect addresses
  that don't exist?

  [Andreas] No, I mean that *it might declare some addresses invalid*
  although they aren't.

In my mind, due to the use of pronouns, I believed the "error-prone
validation [that] might declare some addresses invalid" referred to my
example regex. Apparently they referred instead to inadequate regex
validation in general. Sorry for the confusion.

Jacob Fugal