5 ms·
> [a-zA-Z0-9]@[a-z.]+ Only a small minority of my email addresses I've ever had matches that pattern.
by nielsole 2y ago
> [a-zA-Z0-9]@[a-z.]+
Only a small minority of my email addresses I've ever had matches that pattern.
- throw0101d 2y ago> Only a small minority of my email addresses I've ever had matches that pattern. The example is illustrative, and not definitive, as to how the simple and innocuous decision about a regex can determine functionality, and it is not about someone going "out of your way to make that not work" to break things.
- dxdm 2y agoI don't know if that's what you're trying to say, but what it illustrates to me is how easy it is to quickly cook up a simple regex to filter out certain patterns in email addresses and feel like it's doing the job, while unintentionally breaking things for a large number of people you don't have on your radar.
- throw0101d 2y ago> […] while unintentionally breaking things for a large number of people you don't have on your radar. And you can unintentionally cause sub-addressing to not work without having "to go out of your way to make that not work" like the GGGP wrote.
- dxdm 2y agoI think I misunderstood your point before. I thought you wanted to show a regex that _intentionally_ disables it. It also happens to disable a lot more, making it a bad choice. Now I'm thinking that you might actually agree with that.
- codetrotter 2y agoFor example, an email like David.Calhoun@boeing.com would be completely normal. Yet the above regex would not match it. Whoops. Likewise, can_you_believe_it@hotmail.com which is also completely normal and typical, would fail the regex as well. But I guess if the only kind of customers you want are the fred@hotstartup.com and jane@some-vc.com people then sure, this otherwise wholly inadequate regex would serve you well.