3 ms·
The crappy regex solution is much faster than what you suggest, and will work 99.9% of the time. The time you spend doing it the right way will reduce your conv
by stonemetal 13y ago
The crappy regex solution is much faster than what you suggest, and will work 99.9% of the time. The time you spend doing it the right way will reduce your conversion rate because people will view your site as slow. In this case worse is better.
- anonyfuss 13y ago> The time you spend doing it the right way will reduce your conversion rate because people will view your site as slow. During all those new account registrations they're constantly making? Does this feel slow to you? https://www.emailitin.com/email_validator https://www.emailitin.com/email_validator > In this case worse is better. No, it's not. Every time you exclude a valid e-mail address, you lose or annoy a customer for no reason other than your own lack of understanding of the RFCs. There are a number of steps that can be taken that don't involve broken regexps that filter out valid addresses. Please stop trying to justify doing it completely incorrectly.
- stonemetal 13y agoDoes this feel slow to you? https://www.emailitin.com/email_validator https://www.emailitin.com/email_validator Yes, it did.
- anonyfuss 13y agoI got a response in 55ms. We must have different definitions of 'slow'.
- stonemetal 13y agoI must have hit a speed bump somewhere then, it took around 2 seconds to look up my email address.