Will check if the given module is installed in the @INC. It will print the path and return 0 if found, or 1 otherwise.

Based on script from SharpyWarpy in http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/how-to-list-all-installed-perl-modules-216603/

find . = will set up your recursive search. You can narrow your search to certain file by adding -name "*.ext" or limit buy using the same but add prune like -name "*.ext" -prune

xargs =sets it up like a command line for each file find finds and will invoke the next command which is perl.

perl = invoke perl

-p sets up a while loop

-i in place and the .bak will create a backup file like filename.ext.bak

-e execute the following....

's/ / /;' your basic substitute and replace.

Using perl and tput, show all the colors with numbers that your actual $TERM can handle.

If want to remove the numbers at beginning of new line, it should be something like this:

Just another FizzBuzz in Perl.

This fixes the extra lines you get when you request only 1 paragraph using a little bit of grep. Just set p to the number of paragraphs you want.

Stolen from http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/17450269990/convert-ruby-1-8-to-1-9-hash-syntax

Print environment (system) information using Perl.

Encode HTML entities supporting UTF-8 input and output

Silly Perl variant.

works where perl works, because the awk version is gnu awk only.

Nasty perl one-liner that provides a sparkline of ping times. If you want a different history than the last 30, just put that value in. It (ab)uses unicode to draw the bars, inspired by https://github.com/joemiller/spark-ping . It's not the most bug-free piece of code, but what it lacks in robustness it makes up for in capability. :)

If anyone has any ideas on how to make it more compact or better, I'd love to hear them.

I included a ping to google in the command just as an example (and burned up 10 chars doing it!). You should use it with: $ ping example.com | $SPARKLINE_PING_COMMAND

This also works with -i, just like one might do with sed.

Per country GET report, based on access log. Easy to transform to unique IP

Provides a much cleaner, easier to read output than the closest alternative, ls -1R. This alternative makes it easier to differentiate directories from files: find . -printf '%y %p\n' | perl -ne 'if( m/(\w) (.*)\/(.*)/ ) { $t = $1; $p = $2; $f = $3; $t =~ s/[^d]/ /; $p =~ s/[^\/]/ /g; $p =~ s/\//|/g; print "$t $p/$f\n"; } elsif( m/(\w) (.*)/ ) { print "$1 $2\n"; } else { print "error interpreting: \"$_\"\n"; }'

Dump 389ds schema, putting "\n " on one line with perl.

You have to specify the objectclasses, attributetypes operational attributes too, otherwise they won't be dumped!

extract data in multiline blocks of data with perl pattern matching loop

This prints file access rights in octal - useful when "stat" is unavailable.

loop through files in .php extension

make a .bak of each of them

find the base64_decode function and remove it

People are *going* to post the wrong ways to do this. It's one of the most common form-validation tasks, and also one of the most commonly messed up. Using a third party tool or library like exim means that you are future-proofing yourself against changes to the email standard, and protecting yourself against the fact that actually checking whether an email address is valid is *not possible*.

Still, perhaps your boss is insisting you really do need to check them internally. OK.

Read the RFCs. The bet before the @ is specified by RFC2821 and RFC2822. The domain name part is specified by RFC1035, RFC1101, RFC1123 and RFC2181.

Generally, when people say "email address", they mean that part of the address that the RFC terms the "addr-spec": the "blah@domain.tld" address, with no display names, comments, quotes, etc. Also "root@localhost" and "root" should be invalid, as should arbitrary addressing schemes specified by a protocol indicator, like "jimbo@myprotocol:foo^bar^baz".

So... With the smallest poetic license for readability (allowing underscores in domain names so we can use "\w" instead of "[a-z0-9]"), the RFCs give us:

^(?:"(?:[^"\\]|\\.)+"|[-^!#\$%&'*+\/=?`{|}~.\w]+)@(?=.{3,255}$)(?:[\w][\w-]{0,62}\.){1,128}[\w][\w-]{0,62}$

Not perfect, but the best I can come up with, and most compliant I've found. I'd be interested to see other people's ideas, though. It's still not going to verify you an address fersure, properly, 100% guaranteed legit, though. What else can you do? Well, you could also:

* verify that the address is either a correct dotted-decimal IP, or contains letters.

* remove reserved domains (.localhost, .example, .test, .invalid), reserved IP ranges, and so forth from the address.

* check for banned domains (whitehouse.gov, example.com...)

* check for known TLDs including alt tlds.

* see if the domain has an MX record set up: if so, connect to that host, else connect to the domain.

* see if the given address is accepted by the server as a recipient or sender (this fails for yahoo.*, which blocks after a few attempts, assuming you are a spammer, and for other domains like rediffmail.com, home.com).

But these are moving well out of the realm of generic regex checks and into the realm of application-specific stuff that should be done in code instead - especially the latter two. Hopefully, this is all you needed to point out to your boss "hey, email validation this is a dark pit with no bottom, we really just want to do a basic check, then send them an email with a link in it: it's the industry standard solution."

Of course, if you want to go nuts, here's an idea that you could do. Wouldn't like to do it myself, though: I'd rather just trust them until their mail bounces too many times. But if you want it, this (untested) code checks to see if the mail domain works. It's based on a script by John Coggeshall and Jesse Houwing that also asked the server if the specific email address existed, but I disliked that idea for several reasons. I suspect: it will get you blocked as a spambot address harvester pretty quick; a lot of servers would lie to you; it would take too much time; this way you can cache domains marked as "OK"; and I suspect it would add little to the reliability test.