3 ms·
And even though that sounds reasonable, it is still wrong. Technically, you do not even need the dot, if you add an MX record to a whole TLD or have some other
by merlinscholz 5y ago
And even though that sounds reasonable, it is still wrong. Technically, you do not even need the dot, if you add an MX record to a whole TLD or have some other funky DNS setup.
Source: https://www.netmeister.org/blog/email.html https://www.netmeister.org/blog/email.html
- 0x640x6D 5y agoThe linked regexp doesn't require the TLD: https://rubular.com/r/Y9G4HR2Ox8gzqd https://rubular.com/r/Y9G4HR2Ox8gzqd
- NavinF 5y agoYep! I know that @mil addresses used to be a thing. With the explosion of new TLDs I would be unsurprised if name@gmail addresses became a thing in the future and silly devs handled it by adding an exception to their huge regex instead of just using “.+@.+”.
- ameliaquining 5y agoI'll quote the WHATWG HTML spec, which that Ruby code cites as its source (https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/input.html#valid-e-mail-address https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/input.html#valid-e-ma...): > This requirement is a willful violation of RFC 5322, which defines a syntax for email addresses that is simultaneously too strict (before the "@" character), too vague (after the "@" character), and too lax (allowing comments, whitespace characters, and quoted strings in manners unfamiliar to most users) to be of practical use here. Personally, I say if it's good enough for Web browsers, it's probably good enough for your app.