Everyone knows what an email address is, right? (Quiz)
-
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.
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.
-
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.Fails for when there is no TLD. Just send an email and validate a response eg from a link.
-
I didn't understand this one. How do you have a no dot domain? Like you need to distinguish from example.com or example.wtf
Edit: do you mean if you own
.googleyou can have youremail@googleaddress?wrote last edited by [email protected]In response to your edit.
Yes, or countries could use their cctld, e.g. email@us or noreply@uk.
Or any tld owner could do the same with theirs, of course.
-
I didn't understand this one. How do you have a no dot domain? Like you need to distinguish from example.com or example.wtf
Edit: do you mean if you own
.googleyou can have youremail@googleaddress?you could also send mails within your local network, the hostname just has to resolve and have a mail service running
-
Yeah I have a .engineering for my biz. I also registered mycompanyengineering.com to get through places that won’t take the new TLDs.
Usually banks.
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 [email protected]"
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.deor.combut.eu -
This post did not contain any content.
13/21, seems like I am not significantly different from random guessing
-
13/21, seems like I am not significantly different from random guessing
Got the same, I can't believe how many weird comments and extra random things can get added into an email address.
-
nice. though valid but obsolete is not a thing... if it's obsolete it's invalid.
Agreed! (because then I would get 3 more points on the test)
-
Fails for when there is no TLD. Just send an email and validate a response eg from a link.
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.
-
I don't validate emails, I test them.
That's your email? OK, what did we send it? if we couldn't send to it or the user can't read it there's no reason to accept it.
OK, maybe I do some light validation first, but I don't trust the email address just because it's email-address-shaped.
Hooray, you have better security than Apple, who won't let me use my own email because some idiot in Australia used it first.
-
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 "[email protected]", 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.
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
-
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
const emailRegExp = /^[\w.!#$%&'*+/=?^`{|}~-]+@[a-z\d-]+(?:\.[a-z\d-]+)*$/i;per the HTML specification. From https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_development/Extensions/Forms/Form_validation#validating_forms_without_a_built-in_api
-
const emailRegExp = /^[\w.!#$%&'*+/=?^`{|}~-]+@[a-z\d-]+(?:\.[a-z\d-]+)*$/i;per the HTML specification. From https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn_web_development/Extensions/Forms/Form_validation#validating_forms_without_a_built-in_api
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
(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])+)\\]) -
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I
rage quitgave up at 12.A fork bomb is apparently a valid email address.
I quit, this is stupid.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
In response to your edit.
Yes, or countries could use their cctld, e.g. email@us or noreply@uk.
Or any tld owner could do the same with theirs, of course.
Pretty cool
-
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
(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])+)\\])MDN isn't a very random place?
-
MDN isn't a very random place?
No. But it's on the form validation topic.
-
This post did not contain any content.
So much better than I thought it would be! Thank you for making the world a better & more informed place
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
