this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
89 points (88.7% liked)

Programming

16971 readers
214 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You can use a regex to do basic validation. That regex is .+@.+. Anything beyond that is a waste of time.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Which ones? In RFC 5322 every address contains an addr-spec at some point, which in turn must include an @. RFC 6854 does not seem to change this. Or did I misread something?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

EDIT: I'M DUMB I THOUGHT YOU MEANT A LITERAL "." , that regex is indeed correct.

Original:

This is a valid address: user.name@[IPv6:2001:db8:1ff::a0b:dbd0]

Relevant spec: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321#section-4.1.3

And you all doubted me... :P

Edit: Wait, I also don't think local-part even needs a "." in it? [email protected] should be valid as well.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And it's matched by .+@.+ as it contains an @.

Remember, we're taking about regular expressions here so .+ means "a sequence of one or more arbitrary characters". It does not imply that an actual dot is present.

(And I overlooked the edit. Oops.)

[–] [email protected] -4 points 7 months ago (3 children)

There are also cases where you want to have a disallow list of known bad email providers. That’s also part of the parsing and validating.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's a valid need, but a domain blacklist isn't part of email parsing and if you conflate the two inside your program then you're mixing concerns.

Why is the domain blacklist even in your program? It should be a user configurable file or a list of domains in the database.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

You are right in that it isn't (or shouldn't be) part of the parsing, but the program has to check the blacklist even if it's in a database.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

We were discussing validation, not parsing. There’s no parsing in an email. You might give it a type once it passes validation, but an email is just a string with an @ in it (and likely some . because you want at least 1 TLD but even that I’m not sure).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

fuck any website that requires an account to just READ it's stupid content and at the same time blocks guerrillamail/10minutemail (looking at you, Glassdoor,I don't want to get fucking spam just so that I can check approximate salary in a company)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Sounds like your gripe is with people requiring accounts for reading public content, and not with preventing usage of automated email creation and trying to limit bots on your website.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

disallow list of known bad email providers.

Imagine giving someone your phone number, and having them say you have to get a different one because they don't like some of the digits in it.

I have seen this nonsense more times than I care to remember. Please don't build systems this way.

If you're trying to do bot detection or the like, use a different approach. Blacklisting email addresses based on domain or any other pattern does a poor job of it and creates an awful user experience.

(And if it prevents people from using spam-fighting tools like forwarding services, then it's directly user-hostile, and makes the world a worse place.)