Title: Astrology Zodiac Signs Information - http://www.horoscopepoint.com
Date: 7/22/2016 10:54:24 AM
Learn complete information about all 12 astrology zodiac signs nature, personality, character and love relationship. And you can also talk and chat with Indian best astrologer.
Title: Serviced Apartments Manchester – www.quayapartments.co.uk
Name: Quay Apartments
Date: 7/30/2015 5:58:40 AM
250 The Quays, Salford,
Manchester M50 358
+44 161 225 1423
Hotels media city Salford Quays- http://www.quayapartments.co.uk
Title: Suggested Improvement
Date: 6/25/2015 11:13:42 PM
The expression can be made case insensitive with a mode switch preceding the pattern to be matched. Using (?i) before the regex enables [A-Za-z0-9] to be shortened to [a-z\d], replacing 0-9 with the shorthand \d. To match all characters in the class \w except an underscore (_), you can use character class subtraction: [\w-[_]] to replace the expression [A-Za-z0-9]
Date: 6/21/2012 7:18:46 AM
Title: a problem with the pattern
Name: Giulio Di Gio Battista
Date: 11/12/2008 7:09:49 AM
by using the .net RegEx if you give "[email protected]" as input the method IsMatch will hang indefinetely
Please let me know if you solve the problem
Giulio Di Gio Battista ([email protected])
Title: does not with gmail "+"
Date: 10/1/2008 2:22:17 PM
gmail allows for the following:
This was my fix:
Name: Love to avoid work!
Date: 8/9/2007 10:54:59 AM
Here's a regex that actually validates email addresses like this: [email protected].xxx. Took a long time to find one that did (I'm lazy)
Title: Short and mathces +, - and _
Name: Juan Manuel Caicedo
Date: 3/6/2005 1:37:11 PM
I just fixed Chris' shorten regep to match +, - and _ (underscore)
Title: fails on + too
Date: 12/1/2004 5:50:34 PM
[email protected] fails to match.
Title: what do you think of that regex?
Date: 10/28/2004 8:09:03 PM
Title: underscore problem
Date: 9/24/2004 3:07:56 AM
Does not match valid e-mail addresses like [email protected] oder [email protected]
Title: Runs Too Long
Date: 9/3/2004 6:03:14 PM
Ran into an issue during testing. Performance took a major hit and actually took a box down.
Test Case Results:
Input a nonvalid email (only /w) and as the length grows so does the processing time as shown below. Testing this expression on www.regexlib.com produced similiar time outs.
Below are the time stamped results when looping each test expression.
45.38.627 ...Processing Bad Email ABCDE
45.38.697 ...Processing Bad Email ABCDEABCDE
45.38.697 ...Processing Bad Email ABCDEABCDEABCDE
45.38.707 ...Processing Bad Email ABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDE
45.39.66 ...Processing Bad Email ABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDE
45.50.561 ...Processing Bad Email ABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDEABCDE
[Case 6 too minutes to execute. 52-45=7 min]
52.41.144 ...Processing Bad Email AB.DE
52.41.144 ...Processing Bad Email AB.DEAB.DE
52.41.144 ...Processing Bad Email AB.DEAB.DEAB.DE
52.41.144 ...Processing Bad Email AB.DEAB.DEAB.DEAB.DE
Title: How close is this to what is valid for the RFC?
Date: 9/2/2004 1:21:48 PM
How close is this to what is valid for the RFC for e-mail addresses?
(I think it may be RFC 822 http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html but not sure - you know thw one I mean)?
Date: 5/21/2004 3:10:53 AM
The expression has worked fine for me
Date: 5/13/2004 4:09:30 PM
Name: Saleem Mirza
Date: 1/13/2004 2:57:57 AM
Title: Shorten this puppy...
Date: 1/8/2004 7:40:39 PM
This regex can be shortened a bit by replacing all [a-zA-Z0-9] (or variant thereof) with \w.
Title: limit number of characters
Date: 12/29/2003 3:41:19 PM
how do i limit this regexp to up to 10 characters in length? i tried
and that didnt work