3 ms·

> The one thing I systematically do in term of email validation is catch the common typos of the main providers. So things like gmail.con, hotmai.com, gmall.com

> The one thing I systematically do in term of email validation is catch the common typos of the main providers. So things like gmail.con, hotmai.com, gmall.com and so on. That can be helpful, but I assume you suggest the user that they may have made a typo and not flat out reject the input? > […] having an email with a local domain name with no TLD is valid but it'll never be valid in the context […] Well, depending on how the fairly recent brand generic top-level domains work out, I would not rule out someone actually using ceo@cocacola at some point (until the CEO of Coca-Cola realises that legacy email validation regexes mean a suspiciously quieter then usual inbox).

nicolas_t 10y ago
Our email provider flat out refuses to send to those domains actually so we actually reject the input for the domains that the email provider blocks. > I would not rule out someone actually using ceo@cocacola at some point Of course, this is subject to change if the practice changes. The aim is to make sure that we balance the percentage of emails that are correct versus the number of potential rejections. If 0.00001% of users use a top level domain and 99.9999% of emails without a tld are invalid, then it makes sense to reject it. We're not trying to find the most perfect solution just the most convenient solution for users.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  How about rejecting all email addresses that contain the character sequence "jex"? 99.9999% of email addresses with "jex" in it are invalid, so it makes sense to reject it, doesn't it?
  - pixl97 10y ago
    If a few hundred people messed up and typed jex instead of sex a day, then yes it would make sense to reject it.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      1. That wasn't the argument. 2. No, it still wouldn't make sense to reject existing email addresses if there is a method to figure out whether the email address you are being presented with actually exists instead of divining validity using some unreliable proxy. There is just absolutely no reason to ever reject an email address that you can successfully send emails to.
      - Bartweiss 10y ago
        I mean, in this case there are two reasons. They're both bad reasons, but still. 1. "Our email provider won't send to them". That excuses OP's part in the thing, although now we need to ask why the email provider is being stupid. 2. "We don't do validation links, they cause too many lost users". I have serious problems with this, but from a pure-business standpoint they decided that rejecting valid emails loses fewer users than using account confirmation. Number two is vaguely horrifying to me, but in terms of "new users gained" it probably works out.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        > 1. "Our email provider won't send to them". That excuses OP's part in the thing, although now we need to ask why the email provider is being stupid. Nope, actually, it doesn't. If your reaction to noticing that some service that you are using is incompetent is to adopt the same incompetence, that doesn't excuse anything. > 2. "We don't do validation links, they cause too many lost users". I have serious problems with this, but from a pure-business standpoint they decided that rejecting valid emails loses fewer users than using account confirmation. > Number two is vaguely horrifying to me, but in terms of "new users gained" it probably works out. Well, sure, it's as much a reason as "I don't like your nose!" If they don't do verification emails, they might as well just not ask for an email address in the first place (or make it optional). Misguided "validation" doesn't help with most mistyped addresses anyhow.
        Bartweiss 10y ago

nicolas_t 10y ago

Our email provider flat out refuses to send to those domains actually so we actually reject the input for the domains that the email provider blocks. > I would not rule out someone actually using ceo@cocacola at some point Of course, this is subject to change if the practice changes. The aim is to make sure that we balance the percentage of emails that are correct versus the number of potential rejections. If 0.00001% of users use a top level domain and 99.9999% of emails without a tld are invalid, then it makes sense to reject it. We're not trying to find the most perfect solution just the most convenient solution for users.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
How about rejecting all email addresses that contain the character sequence "jex"? 99.9999% of email addresses with "jex" in it are invalid, so it makes sense to reject it, doesn't it?
- pixl97 10y ago
  If a few hundred people messed up and typed jex instead of sex a day, then yes it would make sense to reject it.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    1. That wasn't the argument. 2. No, it still wouldn't make sense to reject existing email addresses if there is a method to figure out whether the email address you are being presented with actually exists instead of divining validity using some unreliable proxy. There is just absolutely no reason to ever reject an email address that you can successfully send emails to.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      I mean, in this case there are two reasons. They're both bad reasons, but still. 1. "Our email provider won't send to them". That excuses OP's part in the thing, although now we need to ask why the email provider is being stupid. 2. "We don't do validation links, they cause too many lost users". I have serious problems with this, but from a pure-business standpoint they decided that rejecting valid emails loses fewer users than using account confirmation. Number two is vaguely horrifying to me, but in terms of "new users gained" it probably works out.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
        > 1. "Our email provider won't send to them". That excuses OP's part in the thing, although now we need to ask why the email provider is being stupid. Nope, actually, it doesn't. If your reaction to noticing that some service that you are using is incompetent is to adopt the same incompetence, that doesn't excuse anything. > 2. "We don't do validation links, they cause too many lost users". I have serious problems with this, but from a pure-business standpoint they decided that rejecting valid emails loses fewer users than using account confirmation. > Number two is vaguely horrifying to me, but in terms of "new users gained" it probably works out. Well, sure, it's as much a reason as "I don't like your nose!" If they don't do verification emails, they might as well just not ask for an email address in the first place (or make it optional). Misguided "validation" doesn't help with most mistyped addresses anyhow.
        Bartweiss 10y ago