top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 72 points 1 year ago (1 child)

THIS THING IS STUPID!!!!

Or it’s just me that is the fool. Thanks for sharing. I just learned about 9 new things.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I don't know if they changes the answer to the question, but it now says name@example is valid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    What if we 👉@👈 ..? 🤭

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Now i just need a registrar that allows emoji...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    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)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    My top five from this (all valid):

    • ":(){␣:|:&␣};:"@example.com # fork bomb
    • 👉@👈 and poop@[💩]
    • "@"@[@]
    • c̷̨̈́i̵̮̅l̶̠̐͊͝ȁ̷̠̗̆̍̍n̷͖̘̯̍̈͒̅t̶͍͂͋ř̵̞͈̓ȯ̷̯̠-̸͚̖̟͋s̴͉̦̭̔̆̃͒û̵̥̪͆̒̕c̸̨̨̧̺̎k̵̼͗̀s̸̖̜͍̲̈́͋̂͠@example.com
    • fed-up-yet@␣example.com␣ # ␣ = whitespace
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 93 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

    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

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah I feel like the correct answer for anything obsoleted by a more recent RFC should be "Invalid".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    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.

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2822#section-4

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    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>
    
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I had to make an email address just for paypal because those idiots don't accept subdomains in email addresses.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I don't care who the IRS sends, I am not validating emails with spaces on them.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago

    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?

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    14 / 21

    This is the score you get when you answer "valid" for every question. Good job.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I didn't do that but got 14 anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I scored 13/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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])+)\\])
    
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    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

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    13/21, seems like I am not significantly different from random guessing

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    13 right answers and I didn't expect so many lol

    I'll never validate some of the 💩 I've learnt today.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Tap for spoilerEmail addresses can have comments?!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    Nested comments. RFC822 had a whole bunch of bad ideas in it, but nobody thought much of it at the time. Most programming languages don't even do nested comments, because they want to filter them out with a simple lexer before the grammar ever sees it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    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

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›