Using a regular expression to validate an email address
42
Over the years I have slowly developed a regular expression that validates MOST email addresses correctly, assuming they don't use an IP address as the server part.  Currently the expression is:

I use this in several PHP programs, and it works most of the time.  However, from time to time I get contacted by someone that is having trouble with a site that uses it, and I end up having to make some adjustment (most recently I realized that I wasn't allowing 4-character TLDs).

What's the best regular expression you have or have seen for validating emails?

I've seen several solutions that use functions that use several shorter expressions, but I'd rather have one long complex expression in a simple function instead of several short expression in a more complex function.
improve this question | comment
Quentin Jerde Created at: 2013-11-13 17:07:23 UTC By Quentin Jerde
Erk. At least I hope you do a toLowerCase (or equivalent) before applying the match! I am tired of Web sites rejecting my e-mail because I like to type capitals where they make sense... - Miss Terence Klocko
Oh, BTW, .museum is a valid TLD for quite some time now... :-) - Oma Barton
You need to tell us more about your goals. Is it more important that you exclude all illegal forms, or include all legal forms?

Are you hoping to prevent someone from providing a bogus email address? Then you'll need to send mail to it and see if they get it. - Trycia Eichmann
Your filter is way too strict on the portion before the '@': that part allows almost anything according to the spec, and will (for instance) fail on any address containing a '+'. - Gino Medhurst
@geofftnz you should take note of the many helpful responses that have come in since this was first posted pointing what the many flaws of this expression. I've long since stopped using it. - Frankie Goyette PhD
30 Answers
0
hmm strange not to see this answer already within the answers. Here is the one I've build.
It is not a bulletproof version but it is 'simple' and checks almost everything.

[\w+-]+(?:\.[\w+-]+)*@[\w+-]+(?:\.[\w+-]+)*(?:\.[a-zA-Z]{2,4})


I think an explanation is in place so you can modify it if you want:

(e)  [\w+-]+ matches a-z, A-Z, _, +, - at least one time 

(m)  (?:\.[\w+-]+)* matches a-z, A-Z, _, +, - zero or more times but need to start with a . (dot) 

@ = @

(i)  [\w+-]+ matches a-z, A-Z, _, +, - at least one time 

(l)  (?:\.[\w+-]+)* matches a-z, A-Z, _, +, - zero or more times but need to start with a . (dot) 

(com)  (?:\.[a-zA-Z]{2,4}) matches a-z, A-Z for 2 to 4 times starting with a . (dot)

giving e(.m)@i(.l).com where (.m) and (.l) are optional but also can be repeated multiple times.
I think this validates all valid email addresses but blocks potential invalid without using an over complex regular expression which won't be necessary in most cases.

notice this will allow +@-.com but that is the compromise for keeping it simple.
0
There is not one which is really usable.
I discuss some issues in my answer to Is there a php library for email address validation?, it is discussed also in Regexp recognition of email address hard?

In short, don't expect a single, usable regex to do a proper job. And the best regex will validate the syntax, not the validity of an e-mail (jhohn@example.com is correct but it will probably bounce...).
0
[UPDATED] I've collated everything I know about email address validation here: http://isemail.info, which now not only validates but also diagnoses problems with email addresses. I agree with many of the comments here that validation is only part of the answer; see my essay at http://isemail.info/about.

is_email() remains, as far as I know, the only validator that will tell you definitively whether a given string is a valid email address or not. I've upload a new version at http://isemail.info/about

I collated test cases from Cal Henderson, Dave Child, Phil Haack, Doug Lovell, RFC5322 and RFC 3696. 275 test addresses in all. I ran all these tests against all the free validators I could find.

I'll try to keep this page up-to-date as people enhance their validators. Thanks to Cal, Michael, Dave, Paul and Phil for their help and co-operation in compiling these tests and constructive criticism of my own validator.

People should be aware of the errata against RFC 3696 in particular. Three of the canonical examples are in fact invalid addresses. And the maximum length of an address is 254 or 256 characters, not 320.
0
It depends on what you mean by best:
If you're talking about catching every valid email address use the following:

(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:(?:(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]
)+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:
\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(
?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ 
\t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\0
31]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\
](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+
(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:
(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*|(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z
|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)
?[ \t])*)*\<(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:@(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\
r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[
 \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)
?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]
)*))*(?:,@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[
 \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*
)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]
)+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*)
*:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)?(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+
|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r
\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:
\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t
]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031
]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](
?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?
:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?
:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*\>(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)|(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?
:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?
[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)*:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:(?:(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] 
\000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|
\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>
@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"
(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]
)*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\
".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?
:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[
\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*|(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-
\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(
?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)*\<(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:@(?:[^()<>@,;
:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([
^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\"
.\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\
]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*(?:,@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\
[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\
r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] 
\000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]
|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*)*:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)?(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \0
00-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\
.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,
;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?
:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*
(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".
\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[
^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]
]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*\>(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:,\s*(
?:(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\
".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(
?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[
\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t
])*))*@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t
])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?
:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|
\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*|(?:
[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\
]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)*\<(?:(?:\r\n)
?[ \t])*(?:@(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["
()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)
?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>
@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*(?:,@(?:(?:\r\n)?[
 \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,
;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]
)*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\
".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*)*:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)?
(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".
\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\.(?:(?:
\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z|(?=[\[
"()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|"(?:[^\"\r\\]|\\.|(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t]))*"(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])
*))*@(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])
+|\Z|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*)(?:\
.(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*(?:[^()<>@,;:\\".\[\] \000-\031]+(?:(?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])+|\Z
|(?=[\["()<>@,;:\\".\[\]]))|\[([^\[\]\r\\]|\\.)*\](?:(?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*\>(?:(
?:\r\n)?[ \t])*))*)?;\s*)


(http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html)
If you're looking for something simpler but that will catch most valid email addresses try something like: 

"^[a-zA-Z0-9_.+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9-]+\.[a-zA-Z0-9-.]+$"


EDIT:
From the link:


  This regular expression will only validate addresses that have had any comments stripped and replaced with whitespace (this is done by the module).

0
It all depends on how accurate you want to be.  For my purposes, where I'm just trying to keep out things like "bob @ aol.com" or "steve" or "mary@aolcom", I use

/^\S+@\S+\.\S+$/


Sure, it will match things that aren't valid email addresses, but it's a matter of playing the 90/10 rule.
0
It’s easy in Perl 5.10 or newer:

/(?(DEFINE)
   (?<address>         (?&mailbox) | (?&group))
   (?<mailbox>         (?&name_addr) | (?&addr_spec))
   (?<name_addr>       (?&display_name)? (?&angle_addr))
   (?<angle_addr>      (?&CFWS)? < (?&addr_spec) > (?&CFWS)?)
   (?<group>           (?&display_name) : (?:(?&mailbox_list) | (?&CFWS))? ;
                                          (?&CFWS)?)
   (?<display_name>    (?&phrase))
   (?<mailbox_list>    (?&mailbox) (?: , (?&mailbox))*)

   (?<addr_spec>       (?&local_part) \@ (?&domain))
   (?<local_part>      (?&dot_atom) | (?&quoted_string))
   (?<domain>          (?&dot_atom) | (?&domain_literal))
   (?<domain_literal>  (?&CFWS)? \[ (?: (?&FWS)? (?&dcontent))* (?&FWS)?
                                 \] (?&CFWS)?)
   (?<dcontent>        (?&dtext) | (?&quoted_pair))
   (?<dtext>           (?&NO_WS_CTL) | [\x21-\x5a\x5e-\x7e])

   (?<atext>           (?&ALPHA) | (?&DIGIT) | [!#\$%&'*+-/=?^_`{|}~])
   (?<atom>            (?&CFWS)? (?&atext)+ (?&CFWS)?)
   (?<dot_atom>        (?&CFWS)? (?&dot_atom_text) (?&CFWS)?)
   (?<dot_atom_text>   (?&atext)+ (?: \. (?&atext)+)*)

   (?<text>            [\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x7f])
   (?<quoted_pair>     \\ (?&text))

   (?<qtext>           (?&NO_WS_CTL) | [\x21\x23-\x5b\x5d-\x7e])
   (?<qcontent>        (?&qtext) | (?&quoted_pair))
   (?<quoted_string>   (?&CFWS)? (?&DQUOTE) (?:(?&FWS)? (?&qcontent))*
                        (?&FWS)? (?&DQUOTE) (?&CFWS)?)

   (?<word>            (?&atom) | (?&quoted_string))
   (?<phrase>          (?&word)+)

   # Folding white space
   (?<FWS>             (?: (?&WSP)* (?&CRLF))? (?&WSP)+)
   (?<ctext>           (?&NO_WS_CTL) | [\x21-\x27\x2a-\x5b\x5d-\x7e])
   (?<ccontent>        (?&ctext) | (?&quoted_pair) | (?&comment))
   (?<comment>         \( (?: (?&FWS)? (?&ccontent))* (?&FWS)? \) )
   (?<CFWS>            (?: (?&FWS)? (?&comment))*
                       (?: (?:(?&FWS)? (?&comment)) | (?&FWS)))

   # No whitespace control
   (?<NO_WS_CTL>       [\x01-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x7f])

   (?<ALPHA>           [A-Za-z])
   (?<DIGIT>           [0-9])
   (?<CRLF>            \x0d \x0a)
   (?<DQUOTE>          ")
   (?<WSP>             [\x20\x09])
 )

 (?&address)/x

0
Don't know about best, but this one is at least correct, as long as the addresses have their comments stripped and replaced with whitespace.

Seriously. You should use an already written library for validating emails. The best way is probably to just send a verification e-mail to that address.
0
Per the W3C HTML5 spec:

^[a-zA-Z0-9.!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9](?:[a-zA-Z0-9-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9])?(?:\.[a-zA-Z0-9](?:[a-zA-Z0-9-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9])?)*$


Context:


  A valid e-mail address is a string that matches the ABNF production […].
  
  Note: This requirement is a willful violation of RFC 5322, which defines a syntax for e-mail addresses that is simultaneously too strict (before the “@” character), too vague (after the “@” character), and too lax (allowing comments, whitespace characters, and quoted strings in manners unfamiliar to most users) to be of practical use here.
  
  The following JavaScript- and Perl-compatible regular expression is an implementation of the above definition.
  
  /^[a-zA-Z0-9.!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9](?:[a-zA-Z0-9-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9])?(?:\.[a-zA-Z0-9](?:[a-zA-Z0-9-]{0,61}[a-zA-Z0-9])?)*$/

  
  

0
The email addresses I want to validate are going to be used by an ASP.NET web application using the System.Net.Mail namespace to send emails to a list of people. So, rather than using some very complex regular expression, I just try to create a MailAddress instance from the address. The MailAddress construtor will throw an exception if the address is not formed properly. This way, I know I can at least get the email out of the door. Of course this is server-side validation but at a minimum you need that anyway.

protected void emailValidator_ServerValidate(object source, ServerValidateEventArgs args)
{
    try
    {
        var a = new MailAddress(txtEmail.Text);
    }
    catch (Exception ex)
    {
        args.IsValid = false;
        emailValidator.ErrorMessage = "email: " + ex.Message;
    }
}

0
There are plenty examples of this out on the net (and I think even one that fully validates the RFC - but it's tens/hundreds of lines long if memory serves). People tend to get carried away validating this sort of thing. Why not just check it has an @ and at least one . and meets some simple minimum length. It's trivial to enter a fake email and still match any valid regex anyway. I would guess that false positives are better than false negatives.
0
While deciding which characters are allowed, please remember your apostrophed and hyphenated friends. I have no control over the fact that my company generates my email address using my name from the HR system. That includes the apostrophe in my last name. I can't tell you how many times I have been blocked from interacting with a website by the fact that my email address is "invalid". 
0
I use

\w+([-+.']\w+)*@\w+([-.]\w+)*\.\w+([-.]\w+)*


Which is the one used in ASP.NET by the RegularExpressionValidator.
0
Cal Henderson (Flickr) wrote an article called Parsing Email Adresses in PHP and shows how to do proper RFC (2)822-compliant Email Address parsing.  You can also get the source code in php, python and ruby which is cc licensed.
0
This regex is from Perl's Email::Valid library. I believe it to be the most accurate, it matches all 822. And, it is based on the regular expression in the O'Reilly book:


  Regular expression built using Jeffrey Friedl's example in
  Mastering Regular Expressions (http://www.ora.com/catalog/regexp/).


$RFC822PAT = <<'EOF';
[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\
xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xf
f\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\x
ff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff])|"[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015
"]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015"]*)*")[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\
xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80
-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*
)*(?:\.[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\
\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\
x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x8
0-\xff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff])|"[^\\\x80-\xff\n
\015"]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015"]*)*")[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x
80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^
\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040
\t]*)*)*@[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([
^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\
\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\
x80-\xff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff])|\[(?:[^\\\x80-
\xff\n\015\[\]]|\\[^\x80-\xff])*\])[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()
]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\
x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:\.[\04
0\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\
n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\
015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?!
[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff])|\[(?:[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015\[\
]]|\\[^\x80-\xff])*\])[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\
x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\01
5()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*)*|(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".
\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]
)|"[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015"]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015"]*)*")[^
()<>@,;:".\\\[\]\x80-\xff\000-\010\012-\037]*(?:(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\0
15()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][
^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)|"[^\\\x80-\xff\
n\015"]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015"]*)*")[^()<>@,;:".\\\[\]\
x80-\xff\000-\010\012-\037]*)*<[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?
:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-
\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:@[\040\t]*
(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015
()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()
]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?![^(\0
40)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff])|\[(?:[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015\[\]]|\\
[^\x80-\xff])*\])[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\
xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*
)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:\.[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80
-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x
80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t
]*)*(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".\\
\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff])|\[(?:[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015\[\]]|\\[^\x80-\xff])
*\])[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x
80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80
-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*)*(?:,[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015(
)]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\
\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*@[\040\t
]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\0
15()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015
()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?![^(
\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff])|\[(?:[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015\[\]]|
\\[^\x80-\xff])*\])[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80
-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()
]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:\.[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x
80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^
\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040
\t]*)*(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".
\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff])|\[(?:[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015\[\]]|\\[^\x80-\xff
])*\])[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\
\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x
80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*)*)*:[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015
()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\
\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*)?(?:[^
(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-
\037\x80-\xff])|"[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015"]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\
n\015"]*)*")[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|
\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))
[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:\.[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff
\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\x
ff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(
?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\
000-\037\x80-\xff])|"[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015"]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\
xff\n\015"]*)*")[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\x
ff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)
*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*)*@[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\x
ff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-
\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)
*(?:[^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\
]\000-\037\x80-\xff])|\[(?:[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015\[\]]|\\[^\x80-\xff])*\]
)[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-
\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\x
ff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:\.[\040\t]*(?:\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(
?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80
-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\)[\040\t]*)*(?:[^(\040)<
>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x80-\xff]+(?![^(\040)<>@,;:".\\\[\]\000-\037\x8
0-\xff])|\[(?:[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015\[\]]|\\[^\x80-\xff])*\])[\040\t]*(?:
\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*(?:(?:\\[^\x80-\xff]|\([^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]
*(?:\\[^\x80-\xff][^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)*\))[^\\\x80-\xff\n\015()]*)
*\)[\040\t]*)*)*>)
EOF

0
I never bother creating with my own regular expression, because chances are that someone else has already come up with a better version.  I always use regexlib to find one to my liking.
0
This question is asked a lot, but I think you should step back and ask yourself why you want to validate email adresses syntactically? What is the benefit really?

It will not catch common typos.
It does not prevent people from entering invalid or made-up email addresses, or entering someone else's address. 
If you want to validate that an email is correct, you have no choice than to send an confirmation email and have the user reply to that. In many cases you will have to send a confirmation mail anyway for security reasons or for ethical reasons (so you cannot e.g. sign someone up to a service against their will).
0
For the most comprehensive evaluation of the best regular expression for validating an email address please see this link; "Comparing E-mail Address Validating Regular Expressions"

Here is the current top expression for reference purposes:

/^([\w\!\#$\%\&\'\*\+\-\/\=\?\^\`{\|\}\~]+\.)*[\w\!\#$\%\&\'\*\+\-\/\=\?\^\`{\|\}\~]+@((((([a-z0-9]{1}[a-z0-9\-]{0,62}[a-z0-9]{1})|[a-z])\.)+[a-z]{2,6})|(\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}(\:\d{1,5})?)$/i

0
There's a good discussion here: http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html
0
As you're writing in PHP I'd advice you to use the PHP build-in validation for emails.

filter_var($value, FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL)


If you're running a php-version lower than 5.3.6 please be aware of this issue: https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=53091

If you want more information how this buid-in validation works, see here: Does PHP's filter_var FILTER_VALIDATE_EMAIL actually work?
0
One simple regular expression which would at least not reject any valid email address would be checking for something, followed by an @ sign and then something followed by a period and at least 2 somethings. It won't reject anything, but after reviewing the spec I can't find any email that would be valid and rejected.

email =~ /.+@[^@]+\.[^@]{2,}$/
0
You could use the one employed by the jQuery Validation plugin:

/^((([a-z]|\d|[!#\$%&'\*\+\-\/=\?\^_`{\|}~]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])+(\.([a-z]|\d|[!#\$%&'\*\+\-\/=\?\^_`{\|}~]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])+)*)|((\x22)((((\x20|\x09)*(\x0d\x0a))?(\x20|\x09)+)?(([\x01-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x7f]|\x21|[\x23-\x5b]|[\x5d-\x7e]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(\\([\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0d-\x7f]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF]))))*(((\x20|\x09)*(\x0d\x0a))?(\x20|\x09)+)?(\x22)))@((([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|\d|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.)+(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])|(([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])([a-z]|\d|-|\.|_|~|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])*([a-z]|[\u00A0-\uD7FF\uF900-\uFDCF\uFDF0-\uFFEF])))\.?$/i

0
I don't believe the claim made by bortzmeyer, above, that "The grammar (specified in RFC 5322) is too complicated for that" (to be handled by a regular expression).

Here is the grammar: (from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.4.1)

addr-spec       =   local-part "@" domain
local-part      =   dot-atom / quoted-string / obs-local-part
domain          =   dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domain
domain-literal  =   [CFWS] "[" *([FWS] dtext) [FWS] "]" [CFWS]
dtext           =   %d33-90 /          ; Printable US-ASCII
                    %d94-126 /         ;  characters not including
                    obs-dtext          ;  "[", "]", or "\"


Assuming that dot-atom, quoted-string, obs-local-part, obs-domain are themselves regular languages, this is a very simple grammar. Just replace the local-part and domain in the addr-spec production with their respective productions, and you have a regular language, directly translatable to a regular expression.
0
For a vivid demonstration, the following monster is pretty good but still does not correctly recognize all syntactically valid email addresses: it recognizes nested comments up to four levels deep.

This is a job for a parser, but even if an address is syntactically valid, it still may not be deliverable. Sometimes you have to resort to the hillbilly method of "Hey, y'all, watch ee-us!"

// derivative of work with the following copyright and license:
// Copyright (c) 2004 Casey West.  All rights reserved.
// This module is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
// modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.

// see http://search.cpan.org/~cwest/Email-Address-1.80/

private static string gibberish = @"
(?-xism:(?:(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:\
s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^
\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))
|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+
|\s+)*[^\x00-\x1F\x7F()<>\[\]:;@\,.<DQ>\s]+(?-xism:(?-xism:\
s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^
\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))
|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+
|\s+)*)|(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(
?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?
:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x
0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*<DQ>(?-xism:(?-xism:[
^\\<DQ>])|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D])))+<DQ>(?-xism:(?-xi
sm:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xis
m:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\
]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\
s*)+|\s+)*))+)?(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?
-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:
\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[
^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*<(?-xism:(?-xi
sm:(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^(
)\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(
?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))
|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*(?-xism:[^\x00-\x1F\x7F()<
>\[\]:;@\,.<DQ>\s]+(?:\.[^\x00-\x1F\x7F()<>\[\]:;@\,.<DQ>\s]
+)*)(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))
|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:
(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s
*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*)|(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?
:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x
0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xi
sm:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*
<DQ>(?-xism:(?-xism:[^\\<DQ>])|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]
)))+<DQ>(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\
]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-x
ism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+
)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*))\@(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:(
?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?
-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^
()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s
*\)\s*)+|\s+)*(?-xism:[^\x00-\x1F\x7F()<>\[\]:;@\,.<DQ>\s]+(
?:\.[^\x00-\x1F\x7F()<>\[\]:;@\,.<DQ>\s]+)*)(?-xism:(?-xism:
\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[
^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+)
)|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)
+|\s+)*)|(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:
(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((
?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\
x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*\[(?:\s*(?-xism:(?-x
ism:[^\[\]\\])|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D])))+)*\s*\](?-xi
sm:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:
\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(
?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+
)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*)))>(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-
xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\
s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^
\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*))|(?-xism:(?-x
ism:(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^
()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*
(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D])
)|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*(?-xism:[^\x00-\x1F\x7F()
<>\[\]:;@\,.<DQ>\s]+(?:\.[^\x00-\x1F\x7F()<>\[\]:;@\,.<DQ>\s
]+)*)(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+)
)|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism
:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\
s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*)|(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((
?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\
x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-x
ism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)
*<DQ>(?-xism:(?-xism:[^\\<DQ>])|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D
])))+<DQ>(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\
\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-
xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)
+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*))\@(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:
(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(
?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[
^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\
s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*(?-xism:[^\x00-\x1F\x7F()<>\[\]:;@\,.<DQ>\s]+
(?:\.[^\x00-\x1F\x7F()<>\[\]:;@\,.<DQ>\s]+)*)(?-xism:(?-xism
:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:
[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+
))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*
)+|\s+)*)|(?-xism:(?-xism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism
:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\(
(?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A
\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*\[(?:\s*(?-xism:(?-
xism:[^\[\]\\])|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D])))+)*\s*\](?-x
ism:(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism
:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:
(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))
+)*\s*\)\s*)+|\s+)*))))(?-xism:\s*\((?:\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?
>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0D]))|(?-xism:\s*\((?:
\s*(?-xism:(?-xism:(?>[^()\\]+))|(?-xism:\\(?-xism:[^\x0A\x0
D]))|)+)*\s*\)\s*))+)*\s*\)\s*)*)"
  .Replace("<DQ>", "\"")
  .Replace("\t", "")
  .Replace(" ", "")
  .Replace("\r", "")
  .Replace("\n", "");

private static Regex mailbox =
  new Regex(gibberish, RegexOptions.ExplicitCapture);

0
Not to mention that non-Latin (Chinese, Arabic, Greek, Hebrew, Cyrillic and so on) domain names are to be allowed in the near future. Everyone has to change the email regex used, because those characters are surely not to be covered by [a-z]/i nor \w. They will all fail.

After all, the best way to validate the email address is still to actually send an email to the address in question to validate the address. If the email address is part of user authentication (register/login/etc), then you can perfectly combine it with the user activation system. I.e. send an email with a link with an unique activation key to the specified email address and only allow login when the user has activated the newly created account using the link in the email.

If the purpose of the regex is just to quickly inform the user in the UI that the specified email address doesn't look like in the right format, best is still to check if it matches basically the following regex:

^([^.@]+)(\.[^.@]+)*@([^.@]+\.)+([^.@]+)$


Simple as that. Why on earth would you care about the characters used in the name and domain? It's the client's responsibility to enter a valid email address, not the server's. Even when the client enters a syntactically valid email address like aa@bb.cc, this does not guarantee that it's a legit email address. No one regex can cover that.
0
RFC 5322 standard:

Allows dot-atom local-part, quoted-string local-part, obsolete (mixed dot-atom and quoted-string) local-part, domain name domain, (IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4-mapped IPv6 address) domain literal domain, and (nested) CFWS.

'/^(?!(?>(?1)"?(?>\\\[ -~]|[^"])"?(?1)){255,})(?!(?>(?1)"?(?>\\\[ -~]|[^"])"?(?1)){65,}@)((?>(?>(?>((?>(?>(?>\x0D\x0A)?[\t ])+|(?>[\t ]*\x0D\x0A)?[\t ]+)?)(\((?>(?2)(?>[\x01-\x08\x0B\x0C\x0E-\'*-\[\]-\x7F]|\\\[\x00-\x7F]|(?3)))*(?2)\)))+(?2))|(?2))?)([!#-\'*+\/-9=?^-~-]+|"(?>(?2)(?>[\x01-\x08\x0B\x0C\x0E-!#-\[\]-\x7F]|\\\[\x00-\x7F]))*(?2)")(?>(?1)\.(?1)(?4))*(?1)@(?!(?1)[a-z0-9-]{64,})(?1)(?>([a-z0-9](?>[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?)(?>(?1)\.(?!(?1)[a-z0-9-]{64,})(?1)(?5)){0,126}|\[(?:(?>IPv6:(?>([a-f0-9]{1,4})(?>:(?6)){7}|(?!(?:.*[a-f0-9][:\]]){8,})((?6)(?>:(?6)){0,6})?::(?7)?))|(?>(?>IPv6:(?>(?6)(?>:(?6)){5}:|(?!(?:.*[a-f0-9]:){6,})(?8)?::(?>((?6)(?>:(?6)){0,4}):)?))?(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9])(?>\.(?9)){3}))\])(?1)$/isD'


RFC 5321 standard:

Allows dot-atom local-part, quoted-string local-part, domain name domain, and (IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4-mapped IPv6 address) domain literal domain.

'/^(?!(?>"?(?>\\\[ -~]|[^"])"?){255,})(?!"?(?>\\\[ -~]|[^"]){65,}"?@)(?>([!#-\'*+\/-9=?^-~-]+)(?>\.(?1))*|"(?>[ !#-\[\]-~]|\\\[ -~])*")@(?!.*[^.]{64,})(?>([a-z0-9](?>[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?)(?>\.(?2)){0,126}|\[(?:(?>IPv6:(?>([a-f0-9]{1,4})(?>:(?3)){7}|(?!(?:.*[a-f0-9][:\]]){8,})((?3)(?>:(?3)){0,6})?::(?4)?))|(?>(?>IPv6:(?>(?3)(?>:(?3)){5}:|(?!(?:.*[a-f0-9]:){6,})(?5)?::(?>((?3)(?>:(?3)){0,4}):)?))?(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9]{2}|[1-9]?[0-9])(?>\.(?6)){3}))\])$/iD'


Basic:

Allows dot-atom local-part and domain name domain (requiring at least two domain name labels with the TLD limited to 2-6 alphabetic characters).

"/^(?!.{255,})(?!.{65,}@)([!#-'*+\/-9=?^-~-]+)(?>\.(?1))*@(?!.*[^.]{64,})(?>[a-z0-9](?>[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?\.){1,126}[a-z]{2,6}$/iD"

0
Using a regular expression that recognizes email addresses could be useful in various situations: for example to scan for email addresses in a document, to validate user input, or as an integrity constraint on a data repository.

With regard to validation of user input, the following should however be noted: if you want to find out if the address actually refers to an existing mailbox, then there's no substitute for sending a message to the address. If you only want to check if an address is grammatically correct then you could use a regular expression, but note that ""@[] is a grammatically correct email address.

The syntax of email addresses has been defined in various RFCs, most notably RFC 822 and RFC 5322. RFC 822 should be seen as the "original" standard and RFC 5322 as the latest standard. The syntax defined in RFC 822 is the most lenient and subsequent standards have restricted the syntax further and further, where newer systems or services should recognize obsolete syntax, but never produce it.

In this answer I’ll take “email address” to mean addr-spec as defined in the RFCs. (I.e. jdoe@abc.org, but not "John Doe"<jdoe@abc.org>, nor some-group:jdoe@abc.org,mrx@abc.org;.)

There's one problem with translating the RFC syntaxes into regexes: the syntaxes are not regular! This is because they allow for optional comments in email addresses that can be infinitely nested, while infinite nesting can't be described by a regular expression. To scan for or validate addresses containing comments you need a parser or more powerful expressions. (Note that languages like Perl have constructs to describe context free grammars in a regex-like way.) In this answer I'll disregard comments and only consider proper regular expressions.

The RFCs define syntaxes for email messages, not for email addresses as such. Addresses may appear in various header fields and this is where they are primarily defined. When they appear in header fields addresses may contain (between lexical tokens) whitespace, comments and even linebreaks. Semantically this has no significance however. By removing this whitespace, etc. from an address you get a semantically equivalent canonical representation. Thus, the canonical representation of first. last (comment) @   [3.5.7.9] is first.last@[3.5.7.9].

Different syntaxes should be used for different purposes. If you want to scan for email addresses in a (possibly very old) document it may be a good idea to use the syntax as defined in RFC 822. On the other hand, if you want to validate user input you may want to use the syntax as defined in RFC 5322, possibly only accepting canonical representations. You should decide which syntax applies to your specific case.

RFC 822

I arrived at the following (POSIX) regular expression. I invite everyone to try and break it. If you find any false positives or false negatives, please post them in a comment and I'll try to fix the expression as soon as possible.

([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]))*(\\\r)*")(\.([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]))*(\\\r)*"))*@([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]))*(\\\r)*])(\.([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]))*(\\\r)*]))*

I believe it's fully complient with RFC 822 including the errata. It only recognizes email addresses in their canonical form. For a regex that recognizes (folding) whitespace see below.

Below is how I arrived at the expression. I list all the relevant grammar rules from the RFC exactly as they appear, followed by the corresponding regex. Where an erratum has been published I give a separate expression for the corrected grammar rule (marked "erratum") and use the updated version as a subexpression in subsequent regular expressions.

As stated in paragraph 3.1.4. of RFC 822 optional linear white space may be inserted between lexical tokens. Where applicable I've expanded the expressions to accommodate this rule and marked the result with "opt-lwsp".

CHAR        =  <any ASCII character>
            =~ .

CTL         =  <any ASCII control character and DEL>
            =~ [\x00-\x1F\x7F]

CR          =  <ASCII CR, carriage return>
            =~ \r

LF          =  <ASCII LF, linefeed>
            =~ \n

SPACE       =  <ASCII SP, space>
            =~  

HTAB        =  <ASCII HT, horizontal-tab>
            =~ \t

<">         =  <ASCII quote mark>
            =~ "

CRLF        =  CR LF
            =~ \r\n

LWSP-char   =  SPACE / HTAB
            =~ [ \t]

linear-white-space =  1*([CRLF] LWSP-char)
                   =~ ((\r\n)?[ \t])+

specials    =  "(" / ")" / "<" / ">" / "@" /  "," / ";" / ":" / "\" / <"> /  "." / "[" / "]"
            =~ [][()<>@,;:\\".]

quoted-pair =  "\" CHAR
            =~ \\.

qtext       =  <any CHAR excepting <">, "\" & CR, and including linear-white-space>
            =~ [^"\\\r]|((\r\n)?[ \t])+

dtext       =  <any CHAR excluding "[", "]", "\" & CR, & including linear-white-space>
            =~ [^][\\\r]|((\r\n)?[ \t])+

quoted-string  =  <"> *(qtext|quoted-pair) <">
               =~ "([^"\\\r]|((\r\n)?[ \t])|\\.)*"
(erratum)      =~ "(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*"

domain-literal =  "[" *(dtext|quoted-pair) "]"
               =~ \[([^][\\\r]|((\r\n)?[ \t])|\\.)*]
(erratum)      =~ \[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*]

atom        =  1*<any CHAR except specials, SPACE and CTLs>
            =~ [^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+

word        =  atom / quoted-string
            =~ [^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*"

domain-ref  =  atom

sub-domain  =  domain-ref / domain-literal
            =~ [^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*]

local-part  =  word *("." word)
            =~ ([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*")(\.([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*"))*
(opt-lwsp)  =~ ([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*")(((\r\n)?[ \t])*\.((\r\n)?[ \t])*([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*"))*

domain      =  sub-domain *("." sub-domain)
            =~ ([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*])(\.([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*]))*
(opt-lwsp)  =~ ([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*])(((\r\n)?[ \t])*\.((\r\n)?[ \t])*([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*]))*

addr-spec   =  local-part "@" domain
            =~ ([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*")(\.([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*"))*@([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*])(\.([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*]))*
(opt-lwsp)  =~ ([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*")((\r\n)?[ \t])*(\.((\r\n)?[ \t])*([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*")((\r\n)?[ \t])*)*@((\r\n)?[ \t])*([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*])(((\r\n)?[ \t])*\.((\r\n)?[ \t])*([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]|(\r\n)?[ \t]))*(\\\r)*]))*
(canonical) =~ ([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]))*(\\\r)*")(\.([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|"(\n|(\\\r)*([^"\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]))*(\\\r)*"))*@([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]))*(\\\r)*])(\.([^][()<>@,;:\\". \x00-\x1F\x7F]+|\[(\n|(\\\r)*([^][\\\r\n]|\\[^\r]))*(\\\r)*]))*

0
Here's the PHP I use. I've choosen this solution in the spirit of "false positives are better than false negatives" as declared by another commenter here AND with regards to keeping your response time up and server load down ... there's really no need to waste server resources with a regular expression when this will weed out most simple user error. You can always follow this up by sending a test email if you want.

function validateEmail($email) {
  return (bool) stripos($email,'@');
}

0
According to official standard RFC 2822 valid email regex is 

(?:[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+(?:\.[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+)*|"(?:[\x01-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x21\x23-\x5b\x5d-\x7f]|\\[\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x7f])*")@(?:(?:[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?\.)+[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?|\[(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.){3}(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?|[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9]:(?:[\x01-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x21-\x5a\x53-\x7f]|\\[\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x7f])+)\])


if you want to use it in Java its really very easy

import java.util.regex.*;

class regexSample 
{
   public static void main(String args[]) 
   {
      //Input the string for validation
      String email = "xyz@hotmail.com";

      //Set the email pattern string
      Pattern p = Pattern.compile(" (?:[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+(?:\\.[a-z0-9!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-]+)*|"
              +"(?:[\\x01-\\x08\\x0b\\x0c\\x0e-\\x1f\\x21\\x23-\\x5b\\x5d-\\x7f]|\\[\\x01-\\x09\\x0b\\x0c\\x0e-\\x7f])*\")"
                     + "@(?:(?:[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?\\.)+[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9])?|\\[(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\\.){3}(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?|[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9]:(?:[\\x01-\\x08\\x0b\\x0c\\x0e-\\x1f\\x21-\\x5a\\x53-\\x7f]|\\[\\x01-\\x09\\x0b\\x0c\\x0e-\\x7f])+)\\]");

      //Match the given string with the pattern
      Matcher m = p.matcher(email);

      //check whether match is found 
      boolean matchFound = m.matches();

      if (matchFound)
        System.out.println("Valid Email Id.");
      else
        System.out.println("Invalid Email Id.");
   }
}

0
public bool ValidateEmail(string sEmail)
{
    if (sEmail == null)
    {
        return false;
    }

    int nFirstAT = sEmail.IndexOf('@');
    int nLastAT = sEmail.LastIndexOf('@');

    if ((nFirstAT > 0) && (nLastAT == nFirstAT) && (nFirstAT < (sEmail.Length - 1)))
    {
        return (Regex.IsMatch(sEmail, @"^[a-z|0-9|A-Z]*([_][a-z|0-9|A-Z]+)*([.][a-z|0-9|A-Z]+)*([.][a-z|0-9|A-Z]+)*(([_][a-z|0-9|A-Z]+)*)?@[a-z][a-z|0-9|A-Z]*\.([a-z][a-z|0-9|A-Z]*(\.[a-z][a-z|0-9|A-Z]*)?)$"));
    }
    else
    {
        return false;
    }
}

0
There is no simple regular expression for this problem: see 
this fully RFC‑822–compliant regex, which is anything but simple. (It was written before the days of grammatical patterns.)  The grammar specified in RFC 5322 is too complicated for primitive regular expressions, although the more sophisticated grammatical patterns in Perl, PCRE, and PHP can all manage to correctly parse RFC 5322 without a hitch. Python and C# should also be able to manage it, but they use a different syntax from those first three.

However, if you are forced to use one of the many less powerful pattern-matching languages, then it’s best to use a real parser. But understand that validating it per the RFC tells you absolutely nothing about whether the person entering the address is its true owner. People sign others up to mailing lists this way all the time. Fixing that requires a fancier kind of validation that involves sending that address a message that includes a confirmation token meant to be entered in the same web page as was the address. 

That's the only way to know you got the address of the person entering it, which is why most mailing lists now use that mechanism to confirm sign-ups. After all, anybody can put down president@whitehouse.gov, and that will even parse as legal, but it isn’t likely to be the person at the other end.

For PHP, you should not use the pattern given in Validate an E-Mail Address with PHP, the Right Way from which I quote:


  There is some danger that common usage and widespread sloppy coding will establish a de facto standard for e-mail addresses that is more restrictive than the recorded formal standard.


That is no better than all the other non-RFC patterns. It isn’t even smart enough to handle even RFC 822, let alone RFC 5322. This one, however, is.

If you want to get fancy and pedantic, implement a complete state engine. A regular expression can only act as a rudimentary filter. The problem with regular expressions is that telling someone that their perfectly valid e-mail address is invalid (a false positive) because your regular expression can't handle it is just rude and impolite from the user's perspective. A state engine for the purpose can both validate and even correct e-mail addresses that would otherwise be considered invalid as it disassembles the e-mail address according to each RFC. This allows for a potentially more pleasing experience, like


  The specified e-mail address 'myemail@address,com' is invalid. Did you mean 'myemail@address.com'?


See also Validating Email Addresses, including the comments. Or Comparing E-mail Address Validating Regular Expressions.
Your Answer