• lefaucet@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    So much better than I thought it would be! Thank you for making the world a better & more informed place

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    I rage quit gave up at 12.

    A fork bomb is apparently a valid email address.

    I quit, this is stupid.

    • GreenShimada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Got the same, I can’t believe how many weird comments and extra random things can get added into an email address.

  • gedhrel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I kind of expected a lot of this; I remember the sendmail 4 book from back in the day when O’Reilly had that, DNS and BIND, and Perl as the entirety of its corpus.

  • geissi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I vaguely remember a panel where a guy went through various cases like these.

    One of the things that stood out is that not every email provides implements the same specs, so one provider might allow you to set up a “valid” email address that might not be able to communicate with other providers as they consider it “invalid”.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 day ago

    nice. though valid but obsolete is not a thing… if it’s obsolete it’s invalid.

  • codapine@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 day ago

    Also as the registrant of one of those new fancy TLDs, much like the owner of this website (email.wtf), their own email addresses will fail those stupid email validation checks that only believe in example@example.[com|net|org]

    Shitty websites will fail “example@email.wtf”, guaranteed - despite it being 100% valid AND potentially live.

    Source - I have a “.family” domain for my email server. Totally functional, but some shitty websites refuse to believe it.

    • notarobot@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’m not sure I blame the sites. The spec is so complex that it’s not even possible to know which regex to use

      • bignose@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        The spec is so complex that it’s not even possible to know which regex to use

        Yes. Almost like a regex is not the correct tool to use, and instead they should use a well-tested library function to validate email addresses.

        • notarobot@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          That’s one very random place to find that. There are a lot of different one and there is no way we all just agree to use that one.

          Look art his site that shows a more complete and (in theory) official website. While also explaining that there is no regex that is perfect

          https://emailregex.com/

          (Compete regex for the lazy)

          (?:\[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])+)\\])
          
      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Seems like a weird choice as the primary TLD.
        I’d switch it just to reduce the annoying typing hassle and to avoid misspelling.

        It’s already unusual if I say “My email is givenName@LastName.eu
        And that trips so many persons.
        First: I have my own domain
        Second: It’s not gmail, apple or a local provider
        Third: The TLD isnt .de or .com but .eu

    • BlushedPotatoPlayers@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      I have a spam collecting address @freemail.hu , the domain is live and working since 96, sometimes it’s not accepted, because it’s not Gmail I guess

  • isaacd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    Let us recite the email validator’s oath:

    If it has something before the @, something between the @ and the ., and something after the ., it’s valid enough.

    • TechieDamien@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Fails for when there is no TLD. Just send an email and validate a response eg from a link.

      • isaacd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 hours ago

        No. The number of users who have a real email with no TLD is far less than the number of users who will accidentally type an email with no TLD if you don’t validate on the front end.

        I’m here to help 99.9% of users sign up correctly, not to be completely spec-compliant for the 0.1% who think they’re special.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t think it really matters what the standard is, because you’ll be completely limited by some 25 year old bit of Regex from Stack Overflow that every web developer ever has implemented into their form sanity checks.

    • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      The main one that gets passed around will match the weirdness fine. In fact, it probably matches things you don’t want, anyway.

      A signin/registration form really only needs to do sanity checks to get rid of obviously bad addresses. You’ll have to send a round-trip email confirmation message to make sure the email is real, anyway, so why bother going into great detail? Just check that there’s an ‘@’ symbol and a dot in the domain. Most of the rest is wanking off.

      • Dremor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        A domaine without tld (me@home) is a valide address. I saw an email server being used as a mqtt-like server this way (it is very old and predate those software).

        • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          An address without a domain is irrelevant for a signin/registration form. Which is like 90% of the code being written in the wild to validate addresses.

          If you’re writing an email server, then you need to care about all these details. Most of us never will.

              • zurohki@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                2 days ago

                Don’t be ridiculous, I’m going to use an open source password manager to fill an IPv6 address for my email server into the DoorDash signin page.

                • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I know you’re being facetious, but I’m thinking through the implications of someone actually doing this. ISPs aren’t always handing out static IPv6 prefixes for some damn reason, so you can’t count on that address staying the same when self-hosting. Even if you can, you don’t know what will happen when you change ISPs.

                  So yeah, really bad idea regardless.

  • ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 day ago

    I gave up when I got like 5 wrong. I’ve ran mail servers for decades, most of the invalid “valids” would get rejected by any mailservers I’ve administered.

    • Xatolos@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Just because it’s not something you’d use anymore doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.

      WEP is still a valid form of wireless encryption, but no one would use it anymore (and so would be obsolete). It’s still a part of the 802.11 standard.

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You shouldn’t be validating emails yourself anyway. Use a library or check for only the @ and then send an email confirmation.

      • who@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Use a library

        Please, no. If someone wrote email address “validation” complex enough to warrant a library, then their code is almost certainly wrong.

        or check for only the @ and then send an email confirmation.

        Yes. Do that.

        If your boss demands a more detailed check at input time, then make it display warnings, not errors, and continue to the confirmation sending step if the user chooses to ignore the warning.

      • zurohki@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        Even if it’s a completely valid address and the domain exists, they still might’ve fat fingered the username part. Going to extreme lengths to validate email addresses is pointless, you still have to send an email to it anyway.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          I seem to have annoyed an admin of an instance enough for them to subscribe my signup email to hundreds of dating profiles (presumably using a service that offers to harass someone for you)

          Many of them aren’t good at validating email

          One in ten has one email arrive, asking me to click a link to confirm

          9 in ten have 5 emails before I notice them:

          • Please click a link to confirm
          • You received a wink
          • You received a wink
          • You received 3 chat requests
          • You received a link

          So it’s important to not send emails beyond the validate one to unvalidated addresses, to perfect your service annoying or harassing this parties

          Also, use a disposable address for signing up to Lemmy

  • rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 day ago

    I lost it at the fork bomb. I mean I hit valid because there was no way it was on the and not valid, but there’s no way i’d have expected that. after that I just kept guessing the most stupid answer and did pretty well