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”.
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.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>
Yay! Same. But only because I’ve already heard of some email craziness before.
I got 14/21
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)1meaning 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.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.
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
.googleyou can have youremail@googleaddress?
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.
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).
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.
deleted by creator
Bottom-ass email address.
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:
<@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
I scored 13/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.
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.
Spoilers!
Pretty much everything I’ve seen in e-mail is needlessly complicated and weird. So of course addresses are as well.
nice. though valid but obsolete is not a thing… if it’s obsolete it’s invalid.
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.
14 / 21
This is the score you get when you answer “valid” for every question. Good job.
My score was lower 💀
I didn’t do that but got 14 anyway.
Same. I answered what i thought was correct and got 14!
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.
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.
Use a library
Please, no. If someone wrote email address “validation” complex enough to warrant a library, then their code is almost certainly wrong.
or check for only the @ and then send an email confirmation.
Yes. Do that.
If your boss demands a more detailed check at input time, then make it display warnings, not errors, and continue to the confirmation sending step if the user chooses to ignore the warning.
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.
What kind of “light validation”? I’m guessing a
.*@.*regex match.Almost correct. ^.+@.+$
Too hard to validate properly to be worth it. Even if it is technically valid that’s insufficient. It must also work, and the easiest way to test that is to use it and verify that the user got what we sent.
Would pass first validation, but fail when we try to send an email.
Successfully failed.
I see you accept lemmy handles.
