soulfirethewolf@lemdro.id 11 months ago
Smells like bad regex
lemmesay@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
rainerloeten@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Beautiful
soulfirethewolf@lemdro.id 11 months ago
That regex makes me nauseous
soulfirethewolf@lemdro.id 11 months ago
Smells like bad regex
Beautiful
That regex makes me nauseous
MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Exactly. After the @ they should just confirm there’s at least one period. The rest is pretty much up in the air.
deafboy@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Which would still be technically wrong. There does not need to be a dot.
0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Even that would be technically incorrect. I believe you could put an A record on a TLD if you wanted. In theory, my email could be
me@example
.Another hole to poke in the single dot regex: I could put in
fake@com.
with a dot trailing after the TLD, which would satisfy “dot after @” but is not an address to my knowledge.douglasg14b@lemmy.world 11 months ago
And this sort of thing is exactly how you end up with bad regex that invalidates valid emails.
The point isn’t to invalidate all bad emails. It’s to sort out most of them.
drathvedro@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Something something http://[2607:f8b0:4004:c09::8a] and http://3627734062 are valid url’s without a dot, and are probably valid for emails too, but I’m too lazy to actually verify that.
restingboredface@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
I’ve had issues with this in using govt emails too. DOD accounts all have multiple dots based on branch and dept. It broke so many systems and emails never went through.
Aux@lemmy.world 11 months ago
The easiest and most correct check: any character, then @, then any other character.