Everyone knows what an email address is, right? (Quiz)
-
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 -
This post did not contain any content.
I scored 13/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Two of my "favorite" features it didn't even touch on. You can have nested comments:
foo(one(two(three(four(five(six(seven)))))))@example.comThis will actually fail on that big email regex that gets copied around (originally from Mastering Regular Expressions in 1997), because it can only handle comment nesting to a depth of six. It is actually possible to do indefinite nesting now with recursive regex, but it was developed before that feature existed.
RFC822 also allows routing addresses through multiple servers:
<@[email protected]:[email protected]>But this is almost always denied on modern email servers because it was abused by spammers.
-
14 / 21
This is the score you get when you answer "valid" for every question. Good job.
My score was lower
-
I had to make an email address just for paypal because those idiots don't accept subdomains in email addresses.
Pizza Hut doesn't allow dashes in the domain. This prevents me from ordering Pizza Hut with the email under my personal domain. This can be considered a feature.
-
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.Some of those "obsolete" things are outright blocked for specific reasons. For example, routing addresses through multiple servers. It was abused by spammers, so it's almost always denied these days.
Looks like this:
<@[email protected]:[email protected]> -
Yeah I feel like the correct answer for anything obsoleted by a more recent RFC should be "Invalid".
Complaints about the quiz? Send them to
@ -
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 itI don't know if they changes the answer to the question, but it now says
name@exampleis valid. -
I don't know if they changes the answer to the question, but it now says
name@exampleis valid.It says valid but obsolete, which sounds like a contradiction to me.
This is technically valid but considered obsolete. RFC 822 allowed domains without dots, but RFC 2822 made this obsolete.
Do email suffix not indicate a different domain like .org and .com for websites?
-
I scored 13/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
5/21 for me LoL
-
I didn't do that but got 14 anyway.
Same. I answered what i thought was correct and got 14!
-
I don't know if they changes the answer to the question, but it now says
name@exampleis valid.It does say it's valid, but also that it's obsolete, and while the RFC does define valid but obsolete specs, there is nothing defining domains without a dot as obsolete, and it is in fact defined in the regular spec, not the obsolete section
-
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.
And they are ...
-
::: spoiler My top five from this (all valid):
- ":(){␣:|:&␣};:"@example.com # fork bomb
- @ and poop@[]
- "@"@[@]
- c̷̨̈́i̵̮̅l̶̠̐͊͝ȁ̷̠̗̆̍̍n̷͖̘̯̍̈͒̅t̶͍͂͋ř̵̞͈̓ȯ̷̯̠-̸͚̖̟͋s̴͉̦̭̔̆̃͒û̵̥̪͆̒̕c̸̨̨̧̺̎k̵̼͗̀s̸̖̜͍̲̈́͋̂͠@example.com
- fed-up-yet@␣example.com␣ # ␣ = whitespace
:::
TIL that emoji transcend spoilers.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Pretty much everything I've seen in e-mail is needlessly complicated and weird. So of course addresses are as well.
-
It does say it's valid, but also that it's obsolete, and while the RFC does define valid but obsolete specs, there is nothing defining domains without a dot as obsolete, and it is in fact defined in the regular spec, not the obsolete section
I see what you mean, I'm with you now.
