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.
I got 11.
The spaces and quotes caught me.
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)
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.deor.combut.eu
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
Same as I have a .party domain. So I made a place holder (looking at you progressive) email ___+haslazydevs@gmail.com
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])+)\\])MDN isn’t a very random place?
No. But it’s on the form validation topic.
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
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
I vaguely remember a panel where a guy went through various cases like these.
One of the things that stood out is that not every email provides implements the same specs, so one provider might allow you to set up a “valid” email address that might not be able to communicate with other providers as they consider it “invalid”.
I
rage quitgave up at 12.A fork bomb is apparently a valid email address.
I quit, this is stupid.
12/21. It was highly entertaining though.
So much better than I thought it would be! Thank you for making the world a better & more informed place
Well… like Bill Clinton said, it depends on what the definition of “is” is.
15/21
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.
And after that, I now can’t wait for the next pull request with a regular expression on email validation to come through.
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
Don’t tell me what to do!
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”.
Complaints about the quiz? Send them to 💩@💩
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.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?
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>
I got 14/21
Me too and it said that is the amount you’d get if you just picked “valid” for every response. Lmao
Samsies
Yay! Same. But only because I’ve already heard of some email craziness before.
yay 16/21 club
THIS THING IS STUPID!!!
Or it’s just me that is the fool. Thanks for sharing. I just learned about 9 new things.
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.
