ereg statements

[Cerebral Believer]

Is this a good ereg statement?

if
(!ereg("^[_a-z0-9-]+(\.[_a-z0-9-]+)*@[a-z0-9-]+(\.[a-z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-z]{2,}){1}$",$ema il_1
or $email_2))
{
unset($_GET['do']);
$message_new = "<font color='#cc0000' >$email_1 or $email_2 is not a
valid email address.
Please try again.</font>";
include("login_ form.php");
exit();

I am just trying to check if the e-mail fields _1 & _2 on the form contain
valid characters, without getting to complicated. The form I am using it in
keeps returning that I am not entering a valid e-mail address, such
"chris.bolton@n tlworld.com", or "chris@myweb.co .uk",or "chris@ntlworld .com"
not sure why this is the case?

Regards,
C.B.

[Janwillem Borleffs]

Re: ereg statements

Cerebral Believer wrote:

Is this a good ereg statement?
>

The regular expression on itself is fine, but the error is the '$email_1 or
$email_2' condition, which evaluates to '1' or '' before it's compared. You
need to apply the regular expression for each email address seperately.

Also, it's recommended to use the PCRE library instead of the POSIX-based
ereg* functions. See http://www.php.net/pcre for more information.


JW

[Koncept]

Re: ereg statements

In article <kdqTg.75730$DB 3.17407@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>, Cerebral
Believer <nospamthanks@h adenoughalready .comwrote:

Is this a good ereg statement?
>
if
>
(!ereg("^[_a-z0-9-]+(\.[_a-z0-9-]+)*@[a-z0-9-]+(\.[a-z0-9-]{1,})*\.([a-z]{2,})
{1}$",$email_1
or $email_2))
{
unset($_GET['do']);
$message_new = "<font color='#cc0000' >$email_1 or $email_2 is not a
valid email address.
Please try again.</font>";
include("login_ form.php");
exit();
>
I am just trying to check if the e-mail fields _1 & _2 on the form contain
valid characters, without getting to complicated. The form I am using it in
keeps returning that I am not entering a valid e-mail address, such
"chris.bolton@n tlworld.com", or "chris@myweb.co .uk",or "chris@ntlworld .com"
not sure why this is the case?
>
Regards,
C.B.
>
>

Try this:

<?php
function is_valid_email( $email='') {
return (bool) preg_match( "/^
[\d\w\/+!=#|$?%{^&}*`' ~-]
[\d\w\/\.+!=#|$?%{^&}* `'~-]*@
[A-Z0-9]
[A-Z0-9.-]{1,61}
[A-Z0-9]\.
[A-Z]{2,6}$/ix", $email);
}
?>

--
Koncept <<
"The snake that cannot shed its skin perishes. So do the spirits who are
prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be a spirit." -Nietzsche

[John Dunlop]

Re: ereg statements

Koncept:

[Cerebral Believer:]
>

Is this a good ereg statement?

No. The pattern tries to weed out malformed e-mail addresses but fails
because it is too restrictive. A regular expression to match all
well-formed e-mail addresses would be complex, since in addition to the
productions you would need to include from RFC2822, the pattern would
involve recursion of a subpattern if it was to allow comments.

Try this:

A prime bogosity indicator on Usenet.

--
Jock

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: ereg statements

John Dunlop wrote:

Koncept:
>
>

>>[Cerebral Believer:]
>>
>>

>>>Is this a good ereg statement?

>
>
No. The pattern tries to weed out malformed e-mail addresses but fails
because it is too restrictive. A regular expression to match all
well-formed e-mail addresses would be complex, since in addition to the
productions you would need to include from RFC2822, the pattern would
involve recursion of a subpattern if it was to allow comments.
>
>

>>Try this:

>
>
A prime bogosity indicator on Usenet.
>

I did see a regex which would handle all possible addresses. Don't
remember where I saw it off hand, but it was around 6500 chars long.

Obviously it's not easy to validate email addresses!

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[John Dunlop]

Re: ereg statements

Jerry Stuckle:

I did see a regex which would handle all possible addresses. Don't
remember where I saw it off hand, but it was around 6500 chars long.

To give a rough idea to anyone who thinks it's easy, Jerry, point your
browser here:

http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html

That regular expression purportedly validates the well-formedness of
RFC822 e-mail addresses excluding comments. In other words even that
monster couldn't validate e-mail addresses itself. Since RFC2822
obsoleted RFC822, the pattern would need to be even larger, because
RFC2822 allows obsolete productions from RFC822 as well as its own.

Obviously it's not easy to validate email addresses!

Not half.

(Slightly pedantic, but validating e-mail addresses and validating
e-mail address syntax are two different things. Validating e-mail
addresses entails dicovering if the e-mail address is in use;
validating e-mail address syntax entails checking that the syntax
matches that allowed by RFC2822. Go on, witty retort: 'you're not
being pedantic; you're being pernickety'.)

Enjoy the weekend!

--
Jock

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: ereg statements

John Dunlop wrote:

Jerry Stuckle:
>
>

>>I did see a regex which would handle all possible addresses. Don't
>>remember where I saw it off hand, but it was around 6500 chars long.

>
>
To give a rough idea to anyone who thinks it's easy, Jerry, point your
browser here:
>

http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html

>
That regular expression purportedly validates the well-formedness of
RFC822 e-mail addresses excluding comments. In other words even that
monster couldn't validate e-mail addresses itself. Since RFC2822
obsoleted RFC822, the pattern would need to be even larger, because
RFC2822 allows obsolete productions from RFC822 as well as its own.
>
>

>>Obviously it's not easy to validate email addresses!

>
>
Not half.
>
(Slightly pedantic, but validating e-mail addresses and validating
e-mail address syntax are two different things. Validating e-mail
addresses entails dicovering if the e-mail address is in use;
validating e-mail address syntax entails checking that the syntax
matches that allowed by RFC2822. Go on, witty retort: 'you're not
being pedantic; you're being pernickety'.)
>
Enjoy the weekend!
>

You've got it! :-)

And BTW - you right about the difference. And you can't validate an
email address. Nowadays too many ISP's bit-bucket mail to invalid
addresses rather than return a message. Too many spammers were using
the lack of a response to indicate they hit a valid email address.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===