How to verify an email address

[Bob Richardson]

In a FrontPage web I'm trying to validate an email address to be sure it
meets some minimum format, perhaps something like ?@?.* I was told that
this could be done in javascript. Any help would be very much appreciated.

[WindAndWaves]

Re: How to verify an email address


"Bob Richardson" <bobr at whidbey dot com> wrote in message
news:1rqdnfloic HyZz3cRVn-3w@whidbeytel.c om...[color=blue]
> In a FrontPage web I'm trying to validate an email address to be sure it
> meets some minimum format, perhaps something like ?@?.* I was told that
> this could be done in javascript. Any help would be very much appreciated.
>
>[/color]

You can have a look at http://www.cem.co.nz/form/form.html, in the code you
can find a test for an email address.

Cheers

Nicolaas

[Hywel Jenkins]

Re: How to verify an email address

In article <1rqdnfloicHyZz 3cRVn-3w@whidbeytel.c om>, "Bob Richardson"
<bobr at whidbey dot com> says...[color=blue]
> In a FrontPage web I'm trying to validate an email address to be sure it
> meets some minimum format, perhaps something like ?@?.* I was told that
> this could be done in javascript. Any help would be very much appreciated.[/color]

A simple search at Google would have given you loads of options:
Try http://www.google.com/
Seasrch for javascript email validation

--
Hywel

[MyndPhlyp]

Re: How to verify an email address


"Bob Richardson" <bobr at whidbey dot com> wrote in message
news:1rqdnfloic HyZz3cRVn-3w@whidbeytel.c om...[color=blue]
> In a FrontPage web I'm trying to validate an email address to be sure it
> meets some minimum format, perhaps something like ?@?.* I was told that
> this could be done in javascript. Any help would be very much appreciated.[/color]

Try this function. The RegExp might look a little strange, but if you take
the time to hash it out it at least covers all the permutations I could
think of at the time I wrote it. (Took a bit of work IIRC to wrap my mynd
around it when I did it a couple years ago.) You might need to embellish it
a bit to allow for the newer domain extensions.

function isValidEmail(pa rmValue) {
var rex = new
RegExp("^[\\w\\+-]+(\\.[\\w\\+-]+)?@((\\d{1,3}\ \.\\d{1,3}\\.\\ d{1,3}\\.\\d{1
,3})\|([\\w\\+-]+\\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}))$");
var pos = parmValue.searc h(rex);
if (pos < 0) {
return false;
} else {
return true;
}
}

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: How to verify an email address

JRS: In article <CF8od.9003$Qh3 .7986@newsread3 .news.atl.earth link.net>,
dated Sun, 21 Nov 2004 22:29:54, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript,
MyndPhlyp <nobody@homerig ht.now> posted :[color=blue]
>
>"Bob Richardson" <bobr at whidbey dot com> wrote in message
>news:1rqdnfloi cHyZz3cRVn-3w@whidbeytel.c om...[color=green]
>> In a FrontPage web I'm trying to validate an email address to be sure it
>> meets some minimum format, perhaps something like ?@?.* I was told that
>> this could be done in javascript. Any help would be very much appreciated.[/color]
>
>Try this function. The RegExp might look a little strange, but if you take
>the time to hash it out it at least covers all the permutations I could
>think of at the time I wrote it. (Took a bit of work IIRC to wrap my mynd
>around it when I did it a couple years ago.) You might need to embellish it
>a bit to allow for the newer domain extensions.
>
>function isValidEmail(pa rmValue) {
> var rex = new
>RegExp("^[\\w\\+-]+(\\.[\\w\\+-]+)?@((\\d{1,3}\ \.\\d{1,3}\\.\\ d{1,3}\\.\\d{1
>,3})\|([\\w\\+-]+\\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}))$");
> var pos = parmValue.searc h(rex);
> if (pos < 0) {
> return false;
> } else {
> return true;
> }
>}[/color]

The occurrence in code of such as
if (pos < 0) { return false; } else { return true; }
inevitably casts doubts upon the sagacity and understanding of the
author, since
return pos >= 0;
suffices for the same purpose.


When posting code to News, the posting agent should NOT be allowed to
break code lines; it is the author's duty to avoid this.

The code accepts a.a@b.cd, but rejects a.a.a@b.cd; AFAIK, both are
valid.

The code rejects my own address; I assume that its author has not
studied the relevant Internet standards, and has little knowledge of the
world outside his own unspecified country.



OP : consider <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-valid.htm#VEmA> ; you
must mean *@*.* not ?@?.* .

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.c om/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang. javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[MyndPhlyp]

Re: How to verify an email address


"Dr John Stockton" <spam@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jm0UVbIYVd oBFwJE@merlyn.d emon.co.uk...[color=blue]
>
> The occurrence in code of such as
> if (pos < 0) { return false; } else { return true; }
> inevitably casts doubts upon the sagacity and understanding of the
> author, since
> return pos >= 0;
> suffices for the same purpose.[/color]

Po-ta-to versus po-tah-to. To-ma-to versus to-mah-to. Every programmer has
their own style, and even that evolves over time. :-)

[color=blue]
>
> When posting code to News, the posting agent should NOT be allowed to
> break code lines; it is the author's duty to avoid this.[/color]

The 'Net Police have yet to hand out fines. :-) Although I haven't been
monitoring all the NGs, is it safe to assume you point that out to everybody
that posts line breaks even for URLs?

[color=blue]
>
> The code accepts a.a@b.cd, but rejects a.a.a@b.cd; AFAIK, both are
> valid.[/color]

AFAIK, "name.name.name .name.ad-nauseam" is also a valid prefix and domains
with 4 (and more) parts are also to be expected. I would expect the
standards to become even more flexible over time. The author admitted the
RegExp may need tweaking to allow for today's permutations.

[color=blue]
>
> The code rejects my own address; I assume that its author has not
> studied the relevant Internet standards, and has little knowledge of the
> world outside his own unspecified country.[/color]

No facts in evidence regarding the author's knowledge of relevant Internet
standards or of the world outside his own unspecified country. Careful or
the 'Net Police will get you for unsubstantiated character assassination.
:-)


Truth be known, the code was written as a personal challenge to come up with
a single RegExp for validating email addresses. At the time it was written,
the so-called standards were just breaking out of the 8-character limitation
on machine and account names. It hasn't been revisited in a very long time.
The tweaks necessary are relatively minor once the reader understands the
RegExp.

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: How to verify an email address

JRS: In article <uMrod.9870$Qh3 .9552@newsread3 .news.atl.earth link.net>,
dated Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:14:18, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript,
MyndPhlyp <nobody@homerig ht.now> posted :[color=blue]
>
>Truth be known, the code was written as a personal challenge to come up with
>a single RegExp for validating email addresses. At the time it was written,
>the so-called standards were just breaking out of the 8-character limitation
>on machine and account names. It hasn't been revisited in a very long time.
>The tweaks necessary are relatively minor once the reader understands the
>RegExp.[/color]

Right. So it was ancient trash not worth posting, since the OP can get
better advice from others. The address of mine which it fails to accept
has been in use for just over 9 years. The address I used earlier would
also not have been accepted, for the same reason.


Hywel - the trouble with your recommendation is that it is too likely to
find rubbish, which the OP may not recognise as such.


<FAQENTRY>IST M that it would be good to have an entry on RegExps for
validation. Is the FAQ still being updated?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demo n.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

[MyndPhlyp]

Re: How to verify an email address


"Dr John Stockton" <spam@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1tbhnwAmJ0 oBFwai@merlyn.d emon.co.uk...[color=blue]
> JRS: In article <uMrod.9870$Qh3 .9552@newsread3 .news.atl.earth link.net>,
> dated Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:14:18, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript,
> MyndPhlyp <nobody@homerig ht.now> posted :[color=green]
> >
> >Truth be known, the code was written as a personal challenge to come up[/color][/color]
with[color=blue][color=green]
> >a single RegExp for validating email addresses. At the time it was[/color][/color]
written,[color=blue][color=green]
> >the so-called standards were just breaking out of the 8-character[/color][/color]
limitation[color=blue][color=green]
> >on machine and account names. It hasn't been revisited in a very long[/color][/color]
time.[color=blue][color=green]
> >The tweaks necessary are relatively minor once the reader understands the
> >RegExp.[/color]
>
> Right. So it was ancient trash not worth posting, since the OP can get
> better advice from others. The address of mine which it fails to accept
> has been in use for just over 9 years. The address I used earlier would
> also not have been accepted, for the same reason.
>
>
> Hywel - the trouble with your recommendation is that it is too likely to
> find rubbish, which the OP may not recognise as such.[/color]

At least I ventured, which is more than can be said for your "solution."

[Dr John Stockton]

Re: How to verify an email address

JRS: In article <odNod.11458$Qh 3.3350@newsread 3.news.atl.eart hlink.net>,
dated Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:38:44, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript,
MyndPhlyp <nobody@homerig ht.now> posted :[color=blue]
>
>"Dr John Stockton" <spam@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1tbhnwAmJ 0oBFwai@merlyn. demon.co.uk...[color=green]
>> JRS: In article <uMrod.9870$Qh3 .9552@newsread3 .news.atl.earth link.net>,
>> dated Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:14:18, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript,
>> MyndPhlyp <nobody@homerig ht.now> posted :[color=darkred]
>> >
>> >Truth be known, the code was written as a personal challenge to come up[/color][/color]
>with[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >a single RegExp for validating email addresses. At the time it was[/color][/color]
>written,[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >the so-called standards were just breaking out of the 8-character[/color][/color]
>limitation[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >on machine and account names. It hasn't been revisited in a very long[/color][/color]
>time.[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >The tweaks necessary are relatively minor once the reader understands the
>> >RegExp.[/color]
>>
>> Right. So it was ancient trash not worth posting, since the OP can get
>> better advice from others. The address of mine which it fails to accept
>> has been in use for just over 9 years. The address I used earlier would
>> also not have been accepted, for the same reason.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>At least I ventured, which is more than can be said for your "solution."[/color]

Presumably, therefore, you ignored the part aimed at the OP :-
[color=blue]
>OP : consider <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-valid.htm#VEmA> ; ...[/color]

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demo n.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.

[MyndPhlyp]

Re: How to verify an email address


"Dr John Stockton" <spam@merlyn.de mon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EwF9AnBYtJ pBFwFn@merlyn.d emon.co.uk...[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> >At least I ventured, which is more than can be said for your "solution."[/color]
>
> Presumably, therefore, you ignored the part aimed at the OP :-
>[color=green]
> >OP : consider <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/js-valid.htm#VEmA> ; ...[/color][/color]

Mere waving of the hands and banging of the gums void of a working solution
and lacking any substance greater than moist air passing over your lips
giving even more credence to the old adage: Those who can, do. Those who
can't, teach.