Everyone knows what an email address is, right? (Quiz)
-
I scored 16/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
This was fun!
Edit: people, upvote the OP, not me
Yay! Same. But only because I've already heard of some email craziness before.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
15
Going to have to try some of those.... Can you actually register emojis as a domain, or is that just the email validation that allows them?
Edit: most TLDs don't. Smaller ones do sometimes.
-
THIS THING IS STUPID!!!!
Or it’s just me that is the fool. Thanks for sharing. I just learned about 9 new things.
wrote last edited by [email protected]All of the modern internet is built on the decaying carcasses of temporary solutions and things that seemed like a good idea at the moment but are now too widely used to change.
-
I scored 16/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
This was fun!
Edit: people, upvote the OP, not me
yay 16/21 club
-
13/21 here. Mostly got hung up on several "this was valid in earlier RFC, and later removed" kind of situations. There are several where I picked the correct answer, but where I know many websites that won't accept it as valid, and that's not even the more esoteric ones.
Yeah I feel like the correct answer for anything obsoleted by a more recent RFC should be "Invalid".
-
This post did not contain any content.
#18 seems really bad, like no-one-has-ever-sanity-checked-this bad.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Thanks to RFC 6532, Zalgo text is a-okay.
hmmm...
Yay! You're average! Time to start making plans for what you'll do when an LLM takes your job.
I already have plans.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I can't even view it...I get a TLS error
-
This post did not contain any content.
14 / 21
This is the score you get when you answer "valid" for every question. Good job.
-
15
Going to have to try some of those.... Can you actually register emojis as a domain, or is that just the email validation that allows them?
Edit: most TLDs don't. Smaller ones do sometimes.
Emoji domains can be registered using punycode, and you're right that it's up to the TLD whether they're allowed or not.
For example: http://
.la/
.la is encoded using punycode to http://.la/ is URL-encoded to %F0%9F%90%B6Giving the 'true' URL http://
.la/ which then redirects to https://emojipedia.org/dog-faceEmails should generally use
@xn--yt8h.lainstead of@📙.lafor maximum compatibility. I'm not sure if the email spec allows punycode. -
#18 seems really bad, like no-one-has-ever-sanity-checked-this bad.
Im still trying to figure out what that means. How does @ resolve to an IP address?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Relevant talk from FOSDEM 2018 (warning: poor audio quality): https://youtu.be/xxX81WmXjPg
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
::: spoiler My top five from this (all valid):
- ":(){␣:|:&␣};:"@example.com # fork bomb
@
and poop@[
]- "@"@[@]
- c̷̨̈́i̵̮̅l̶̠̐͊͝ȁ̷̠̗̆̍̍n̷͖̘̯̍̈͒̅t̶͍͂͋ř̵̞͈̓ȯ̷̯̠-̸͚̖̟͋s̴͉̦̭̔̆̃͒û̵̥̪͆̒̕c̸̨̨̧̺̎k̵̼͗̀s̸̖̜͍̲̈́͋̂͠@example.com
- fed-up-yet@␣example.com␣ # ␣ = whitespace
:::
-
This post did not contain any content.
I had to make an email address just for paypal because those idiots don't accept subdomains in email addresses.
-
Yeah I feel like the correct answer for anything obsoleted by a more recent RFC should be "Invalid".
wrote last edited by [email protected]But they will work, and according to the spec, you have to build your system so that it can handle those cases. Obsolete doesn't mean incorrect or invalid, just a "you shouldn't do this any more".
Obsolete Syntax
Earlier versions of this standard allowed for different (usually more
liberal) syntax than is allowed in this version. Also, there have
been syntactic elements used in messages on the Internet whose
interpretation have never been documented. Though some of these
syntactic forms MUST NOT be generated according to the grammar in
section 3, they MUST be accepted and parsed by a conformant receiver. -
This post did not contain any content.
::: spoiler Tap for spoiler
Email addresses can have comments?!
::: -
14 / 21
This is the score you get when you answer "valid" for every question. Good job.
I didn't do that but got 14 anyway.
-
I didn't do that but got 14 anyway.
Also didn't do that, but that was the text
-
::: spoiler My top five from this (all valid):
- ":(){␣:|:&␣};:"@example.com # fork bomb
- @ and poop@[]
- "@"@[@]
- c̷̨̈́i̵̮̅l̶̠̐͊͝ȁ̷̠̗̆̍̍n̷͖̘̯̍̈͒̅t̶͍͂͋ř̵̞͈̓ȯ̷̯̠-̸͚̖̟͋s̴͉̦̭̔̆̃͒û̵̥̪͆̒̕c̸̨̨̧̺̎k̵̼͗̀s̸̖̜͍̲̈́͋̂͠@example.com
- fed-up-yet@␣example.com␣ # ␣ = whitespace
:::
Spoilers!
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Question 5 is incorrect,
name@exampleis a fully valid email address, even after RFC 2822The spec of RFC 2822 defines an address (3.4.1) as:
local-part "@" domaindomainis defined (3.4.1) as:domain = dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domaindot-atomis defined (3.2.4) as:dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS] dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)1*atextmeaning at least 1 alphanumeric character, followed by*("." 1*atext)meaning at least 0"." 1*atext
If tomorrow, google decided to use its
googletop-level domain as an email domain, it would be perfectly valid, as could any other company owning top-level domainsGoogle even owns a
gmailTLD so I wouldn't even be surprised if they decided to use it
