THIS THING IS STUPID!!!!
Or it’s just me that is the fool. Thanks for sharing. I just learned about 9 new things.
THIS THING IS STUPID!!!!
Or it’s just me that is the fool. Thanks for sharing. I just learned about 9 new things.
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.
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.
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).
Question 5 is incorrect, name@example is a fully valid email address, even after RFC 2822
The spec of RFC 2822 defines an address (3.4.1) as:
local-part "@" domain
domain is defined (3.4.1) as:
domain = dot-atom / domain-literal / obs-domain
dot-atom is defined (3.2.4) as:
dot-atom = [CFWS] dot-atom-text [CFWS]
dot-atom-text = 1*atext *("." 1*atext)
1*atext meaning at least 1 alphanumeric character, followed by *("." 1*atext) meaning at least 0 "." 1*atext
If tomorrow, google decided to use its google top-level domain as an email domain, it would be perfectly valid, as could any other company owning top-level domains
Google even owns a gmail TLD so I wouldn't even be surprised if they decided to use it
I don't know if they changes the answer to the question, but it now says name@example is 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
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 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 .google you can have your email@google address?
Yes, the top-level domain is still just a domain. I'm not aware of any public Internet services which are reachable from a TLD directly, and it's strongly discouraged by ICANN, but there isn't any technical limitation preventing e.g. someone at Verisign from setting up example@com.
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.
you could also send mails within your local network, the hostname just has to resolve and have a mail service running
What if we 👉@👈 ..? 🤭
Now i just need a registrar that allows emoji...
Any should. Any unicode is converted to alphabetical anyways, through "xn--" + a punycode conversion. Which is actually fairly important for places that don't use the Latin alphabet.
See http://xn-bdk.gay/, which is the same as http://xn--bdk.gay/
(Someone set this up on 196 a while ago, they said they were using Namecheap)
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.com
This 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:
<@foo.example.com@bar.example.com:123@example.com>
But this is almost always denied on modern email servers because it was abused by spammers.
The routing feature is so cursed XD
My top five from this (all valid):
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
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".
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:
<@foo.example.com@bar.example.com:123@example.com>
Well shit, yeah, that "MUST be accepted and parsed" is pretty explicit. That sucks. What is even the point of revising standards? How the fuck do we ever get rid of some of these bad ideas?
I got 14/21
Yay! Same. But only because I've already heard of some email craziness before.
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.
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.
I had to make an email address just for paypal because those idiots don't accept subdomains in email addresses.
I don't care who the IRS sends, I am not validating emails with spaces on them.
You shouldn’t be validating emails yourself anyway. Use a library or check for only the @ and then send an email confirmation.
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.
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:
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
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.
I scored 16/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
Damn, and here I thought I had this locked down because I was salty that so many places struggle with + in the email addy. But my god, there's 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 scored 13/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
nice. though valid but obsolete is not a thing... if it's obsolete it's invalid.
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
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.
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 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
Same as I have a .party domain. So I made a place holder (looking at you progressive) email ___+haslazydevs@gmail.com
I have plenty of website reject even my fairly vanilla [email]+XYZ@ address add–ons
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
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
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.
Exactly! But its not obvios. So most of those shitty websites don't even know they have a problem.
Then there are also people ignoring it on purpose. I once read a reddit comment saying 'well of your address looks like "John wick 🐶❤️"@2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 I don't event want your email in my DB because oit will break something
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])+)\\])
I have a feeling, the ones codapine is stating, didn't even care to half-read the spec and just went with what they knew from experience.
Maybe they didn't even know there was a spec.
Maybe they asked ChatGPT for the regex.
I scored 16/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
I feel pretty good about that
13/21, seems like I am not significantly different from random guessing
13 right answers and I didn't expect so many lol
I'll never validate some of the 💩 I've learnt today.
Tap for spoiler
Email addresses can have comments?!
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.
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 scored 14/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
I actually died at the poop emoji one. Actually amazing awareness to test for that
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://xn--yt8h.la/%F0%9F%90%B6
📙.la is encoded using punycode to http://xn--yt8h.la/
🐶 is URL-encoded to %F0%9F%90%B6
Giving the 'true' URL http://xn--yt8h.la/%F0%9F%90%B6 which then redirects to https://emojipedia.org/dog-face
Emails should generally use @xn--yt8h.la instead of @📙.la for maximum compatibility. I'm not sure if the email spec allows punycode.
top 100 comments