• Jesus_666@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    9 months ago

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

      • Jesus_666@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        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?

          • Jesus_666@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 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.)

    • hansl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Tramort@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • hansl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 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).

        • Black616Angel@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 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.

      • anti-idpol action@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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)

        • hansl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 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.

      • ono@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 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.)