2 ms·

> That's a very strange objection. Virtually every online service excludes all customers that don't have a credit card. But they do not discriminate against wh

> That's a very strange objection. Virtually every online service excludes all customers that don't have a credit card. But they do not discriminate against who issued it. Valid? All good. Just like it with email. > They're not being excluded, they just have to go through some extra steps Disallowing an empty last name field is exclusion, not extra steps. Asking if it's correct is extra steps, which might be fair. Disallowing what in your opinion is a "weird" email is exclusion, not extra steps. Allowing me to use it after sending me an email would be extra steps. However, the name situation is just a validity or database issue, the email is unwarranted discrimination as all emails have the same format. And that is exactly why the argument is not applicable: It is one thing to have a system not fit due to too an ill defined legal form or too many possible options (which is unacceptable on its own, but is hard to resolve), it is another entirely to decide to discriminate actively without cause, especially as it is extra work. Your first argument was that an invalid email was a typo, which the validation flow sorts out which is needed anyway as a gmail address is no less likely to habe a typo. The latter was that weird emails are likely fraudulent, which is just flat out false. So with those out of the way, what reasons remain for going out of your way and writing additional code for deciding what email address is right and what is wrong?

p-e-w 4y ago
> But they do not discriminate against who issued it. Valid? All good. Just like it with email. Ahaha of course they do! Try paying online with a credit card issued by a bank from Uganda, or by a bank that allows customers to prepay their credit card bills, or with a "privacy.com" type virtual card, and you will very quickly see that payment processors most certainly do not treat all cards the same, even if they are valid. And yes, that's "just like with email". Because the majority of online services will outright reject addresses from anonymous/"temp mail" providers, even though they are perfectly valid and can receive mail. Many will additionally disallow +suffix addresses, because they can be used to create multiple accounts from the same mailbox, and also make it easier to automatically get rid of spam originating from the service provider. Service providers want the user's primary, personal email address. Exclusion rules exist to increase the likelihood that this address is in fact what the user has entered. The standard validation flow is clearly not sufficient, else service providers wouldn't bother with all the additional complexity.

p-e-w 4y ago

> But they do not discriminate against who issued it. Valid? All good. Just like it with email. Ahaha of course they do! Try paying online with a credit card issued by a bank from Uganda, or by a bank that allows customers to prepay their credit card bills, or with a "privacy.com" type virtual card, and you will very quickly see that payment processors most certainly do not treat all cards the same, even if they are valid. And yes, that's "just like with email". Because the majority of online services will outright reject addresses from anonymous/"temp mail" providers, even though they are perfectly valid and can receive mail. Many will additionally disallow +suffix addresses, because they can be used to create multiple accounts from the same mailbox, and also make it easier to automatically get rid of spam originating from the service provider. Service providers want the user's primary, personal email address. Exclusion rules exist to increase the likelihood that this address is in fact what the user has entered. The standard validation flow is clearly not sufficient, else service providers wouldn't bother with all the additional complexity.