5 ms·

I don't care for overaggressive email validators myself, but if you are registering with my service using an email of ""()<>[]:,;@\\\"!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{}| ~ ? ^_

by nthitz 14y ago

I don't care for overaggressive email validators myself, but if you are registering with my service using an email of ""()<>[]:,;@\\\"!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{}| ~ ? ^_`{}|~.a"@example.org" I'll probably want you to enter something more reasonable. Anyway just because it is valid according to the RFC, doesn't mean that it's actually a valid user's email address.

jacquesm 14y ago
I guess I won't be using your service then! Quite frequently I find that services will not accept my perfectly valid email address as valid. This is on the whole their loss, since if they can't even properly validate an email address there are probably more loose ends and I'd rather not find out which.
- bwilliams 14y ago
  It's a bit extreme to correlate not being able to validate an email address (that isn't in a common format) to having other loose ends.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    My email address is in a very common format.
    - kbolino 14y ago
      Please be mindful that you responded to a post citing the example of ""()<>[]:,;@\\\"!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{}| ~ ? ^_`{}|~.a"@example.org" That address is not "common" even if it is technically valid. If you want to talk about your own email address, you should provide a sample address that is similar so we know what you're talking about. [edit: I see your address in your profile. It is nothing like the example given.]
    - simcop2387 14y ago
      If it's the one that you have on some of your social media sites, nice. I can suspect why they reject it but is it primarily because of the short length?
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        At a guess the problem is probably a code snippet that checks for minimum length. You could have an even shorter one for a single letter domain in a two letter tld, for instance x@y.nu
- digitalsushi 14y ago
  On the whole, it's probably not a loss. It's probably a gain. On the whole, they validated almost all of the email addresses. They spent their corner case money instead on making the product awesome, and instead of poor []:,;@\\\"!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{}| ~ ? ^_`{}|~.a"@example.org getting a copy, everyone else got something better.
  - fayden 14y ago
    Why not use a librairy that validates emails? You save time, and you actually accept valid emails. I agree that the example with a lot of symbols is over the top, but when a website doesn't accept foo+bar@host.com, I assume the product will be sub-par quality wise. The author did not follow of rigorous process for something as simple as email validation, I doubt he'll be more rigorous in other parts of his project.
    - pyre 14y ago
      There are other concerns too. I submitted a bug report to Zappos because their emailer did not URL-escape '+' in foo+bar@example.com. Resulting in: http://www.zappos.com/?email=foo+bar@example.org which was treated as: http://www.zappos.com/?email=foo%20bar@example.org by the browser. It worked fine when I manually encoded the '+'.
    - michaelhoffman 14y ago
      I've given up on using + addresses. As other people have pointed out, the worst thing about them is that sometimes you will find that it works initially but will break other parts of the application now or later. For example, account creation works fine, but in two years, you can no longer log in.
  - baddox 14y ago
    I don't understand. Won't a correct-to-spec validation procedure take about as long to implement as an ad hoc procedure? I'm guessing a maximum of two developer-hours, and that's if you're extremely careful (i.e. unit tests).
- rsenk330 14y ago
  I run into this a lot using a "+" in my Gmail address. I like to use "username+site_name@gmail.com" for easy filtering, but there are still quite a large number of sites that do not accept this as valid, and it is extremely annoying.
  - abrowne 14y ago
    Years ago, I must have signed up or given my email address to Urban Outfitters with a +uo. They happily continue to send me emails, but their unsubscribe form does not accept it as a valid address! I've tried reporting the bug, but now just send the messages straight to spam.
    - jfoutz 14y ago
      I think you can get paid $25 for each and every one of those. You've made every effort to unsubscribe, and they're still spamming you.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- lanstein 14y ago
  I remember what it is, and you're completely right - it's certainly legitimate and legible (though unusual ;) ).
- nthitz 14y ago
  Accepting "()<>[]:,;@\\\"!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{}| ~ ? ^_`{}|~.a"@example.org versus accepting j@ww.com Hardly a valid comparison. Yes my theoretical non existant service would validate addresses like yours. That is vastly different to the one I mentioned.
  - sil3ntmac 14y ago
    No, but I like to use e.g. joe+SERVICE_NAME@gmail.com and a lot of places flag this as an invalid address. There are use cases.
    - AgentConundrum 14y ago
      I once had an issue with a ticket purchasing website which accepted my "name+SERVICE" email address when I signed up, but it refused it when I tried to sign in later, or possibly just when I was trying to use the "forgot password" functionality - it's been a while. Either way, I was effectively locked out of a website that was storing my credit card information. Since I was in a hurry to buy the tickets (a last minute gift), I signed up for a second account without the "+SERVICE" section, bought the tickets, and sent them an email asking them to either merge the accounts, delete the old one, or otherwise allow me access the other account so I could purge my credit card data. What happened next was a bit shocking. They sent me an email back a few days later saying that they had fixed the issue with my account by removing the '+' symbol. The risk of exploit was relatively low due to the extreme obscurity, but it was technically possible for a short while for a person to go to my email provider and register the username "nameSERVICE" and access my account on the ticketing website, including my credit card information.
      - Terretta 14y ago
        The sites that let you sign up using the + and then don't work later tend to be using URL encoding/decoding and converting that + into a space in some cases but not in others.
dfc 14y ago
"just because it is valid according to the RFC, doesn't mean that it's actually a valid user's email address." I'm sorry but abiding by the RFC is the definition of a valid email address. Postel said it best "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others."
- tbrownaw 14y ago
  A "valid" email address does not have to mean a "well-formed" email address.
  - dfc 14y ago
    Without getting too existential what else could "valid" possibly mean.
    - randallsquared 14y ago
      One that someone is using to accept mail.
- nthitz 14y ago
  Just because myname@xyz.com is valid according to the RFC does not mean xyz.com is an existing domain name with a mail server setup that an account 'myname', let alone that user who inputted actually has access to that account. Just send a validation email
  - dfc 14y ago
    You are confusing "valid email address" with "a valid email address, functioning mail server and user with appropriate credentials to access the system that processes email for the supplied email address."
    - randallsquared 14y ago
      What you quoted was "valid user's email address", not "valid email address". While "valid email address" is arguable, a "valid user"'s email address is more clearly about whether it accepts mail. :)

by nthitz 14y ago

jacquesm 14y ago

I guess I won't be using your service then! Quite frequently I find that services will not accept my perfectly valid email address as valid. This is on the whole their loss, since if they can't even properly validate an email address there are probably more loose ends and I'd rather not find out which.

bwilliams 14y ago
It's a bit extreme to correlate not being able to validate an email address (that isn't in a common format) to having other loose ends.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  My email address is in a very common format.
  - kbolino 14y ago
    Please be mindful that you responded to a post citing the example of ""()<>[]:,;@\\\"!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{}| ~ ? ^_`{}|~.a"@example.org" That address is not "common" even if it is technically valid. If you want to talk about your own email address, you should provide a sample address that is similar so we know what you're talking about. [edit: I see your address in your profile. It is nothing like the example given.]
  - simcop2387 14y ago
    If it's the one that you have on some of your social media sites, nice. I can suspect why they reject it but is it primarily because of the short length?
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      At a guess the problem is probably a code snippet that checks for minimum length. You could have an even shorter one for a single letter domain in a two letter tld, for instance x@y.nu
digitalsushi 14y ago
On the whole, it's probably not a loss. It's probably a gain. On the whole, they validated almost all of the email addresses. They spent their corner case money instead on making the product awesome, and instead of poor []:,;@\\\"!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{}| ~ ? ^_`{}|~.a"@example.org getting a copy, everyone else got something better.
- fayden 14y ago
  Why not use a librairy that validates emails? You save time, and you actually accept valid emails. I agree that the example with a lot of symbols is over the top, but when a website doesn't accept foo+bar@host.com, I assume the product will be sub-par quality wise. The author did not follow of rigorous process for something as simple as email validation, I doubt he'll be more rigorous in other parts of his project.
  - pyre 14y ago
    There are other concerns too. I submitted a bug report to Zappos because their emailer did not URL-escape '+' in foo+bar@example.com. Resulting in: http://www.zappos.com/?email=foo+bar@example.org which was treated as: http://www.zappos.com/?email=foo%20bar@example.org by the browser. It worked fine when I manually encoded the '+'.
  - michaelhoffman 14y ago
    I've given up on using + addresses. As other people have pointed out, the worst thing about them is that sometimes you will find that it works initially but will break other parts of the application now or later. For example, account creation works fine, but in two years, you can no longer log in.
- baddox 14y ago
  I don't understand. Won't a correct-to-spec validation procedure take about as long to implement as an ad hoc procedure? I'm guessing a maximum of two developer-hours, and that's if you're extremely careful (i.e. unit tests).
rsenk330 14y ago
I run into this a lot using a "+" in my Gmail address. I like to use "username+site_name@gmail.com" for easy filtering, but there are still quite a large number of sites that do not accept this as valid, and it is extremely annoying.
- abrowne 14y ago
  Years ago, I must have signed up or given my email address to Urban Outfitters with a +uo. They happily continue to send me emails, but their unsubscribe form does not accept it as a valid address! I've tried reporting the bug, but now just send the messages straight to spam.
  - jfoutz 14y ago
    I think you can get paid $25 for each and every one of those. You've made every effort to unsubscribe, and they're still spamming you.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lanstein 14y ago
I remember what it is, and you're completely right - it's certainly legitimate and legible (though unusual ;) ).
nthitz 14y ago
Accepting "()<>[]:,;@\\\"!#$%&'*+-/=?^_`{}| ~ ? ^_`{}|~.a"@example.org versus accepting j@ww.com Hardly a valid comparison. Yes my theoretical non existant service would validate addresses like yours. That is vastly different to the one I mentioned.
- sil3ntmac 14y ago
  No, but I like to use e.g. joe+SERVICE_NAME@gmail.com and a lot of places flag this as an invalid address. There are use cases.
  - AgentConundrum 14y ago
    I once had an issue with a ticket purchasing website which accepted my "name+SERVICE" email address when I signed up, but it refused it when I tried to sign in later, or possibly just when I was trying to use the "forgot password" functionality - it's been a while. Either way, I was effectively locked out of a website that was storing my credit card information. Since I was in a hurry to buy the tickets (a last minute gift), I signed up for a second account without the "+SERVICE" section, bought the tickets, and sent them an email asking them to either merge the accounts, delete the old one, or otherwise allow me access the other account so I could purge my credit card data. What happened next was a bit shocking. They sent me an email back a few days later saying that they had fixed the issue with my account by removing the '+' symbol. The risk of exploit was relatively low due to the extreme obscurity, but it was technically possible for a short while for a person to go to my email provider and register the username "nameSERVICE" and access my account on the ticketing website, including my credit card information.
    - Terretta 14y ago
      The sites that let you sign up using the + and then don't work later tend to be using URL encoding/decoding and converting that + into a space in some cases but not in others.

dfc 14y ago

"just because it is valid according to the RFC, doesn't mean that it's actually a valid user's email address." I'm sorry but abiding by the RFC is the definition of a valid email address. Postel said it best "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others."

tbrownaw 14y ago
A "valid" email address does not have to mean a "well-formed" email address.
- dfc 14y ago
  Without getting too existential what else could "valid" possibly mean.
  - randallsquared 14y ago
    One that someone is using to accept mail.
nthitz 14y ago
Just because myname@xyz.com is valid according to the RFC does not mean xyz.com is an existing domain name with a mail server setup that an account 'myname', let alone that user who inputted actually has access to that account. Just send a validation email
- dfc 14y ago
  You are confusing "valid email address" with "a valid email address, functioning mail server and user with appropriate credentials to access the system that processes email for the supplied email address."
  - randallsquared 14y ago
    What you quoted was "valid user's email address", not "valid email address". While "valid email address" is arguable, a "valid user"'s email address is more clearly about whether it accepts mail. :)