I also reached out to them on Twitter but they directed me to this form. I followed up with them on Twitter with what happened in this screenshot but they are now ignoring me.

  • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    174·
    11 months ago

    That’s what it looks like to me too

    I could probably write a RegEx for email format validation that’s accurate, but why would I when there are ones already written and readily available that covers all possible legit variations on the standard? I never understood why people insist on writing their own (crap) RegEx for something with as many possible variations they can miss like email…

    And that one isn’t even a weird edge case! It’s a domain with a sub domain, if they can’t even cover that case then it’s an extra shitty RegEx

    • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
      6·
      11 months ago

      And that one isn’t even a weird edge case! It’s a domain with a sub domain, if they can’t even cover that case then it’s an extra shitty RegEx

      Like my work email which is “[email protected]”

    • ShunkW@lemmy.worldEnglish
      93·
      11 months ago

      Let’s see your regex pattern that covers every possible valid email address and rejects all invalid then. It’s not remotely as easy as you’re making it out to be.

      Not saying this isn’t a shitty pattern, but you can’t make a claim like that.

      • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        41·
        11 months ago

        What claim, that I probably could? I didn’t say anything at all about it being easy, it would be a pain in the ass and involve a lot of checking the RFC, but I could probably make one that accurately represents the spec if I wanted to take the time, and even then I’m not exactly confident I would hit every edge case.

        But why would I go to that hassle when there are well designed and vetted ones available?

        I believe you missed the point I was making

        • nybble41@programming.devEnglish
          2·
          11 months ago

          The full email address syntax described in the RFC cannot be precisely matched with a mere regular expression due to the support for nested comments. The need to track arbitrarily deep nesting state makes it a non-regular language.

          If you remove the comments first the remainder can be parsed with a very complex regex, but it will be about a kilobyte long.

        • elephantium@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          11 months ago

          when there are well designed and vetted ones available?

          I’m not convinced of this, tbh. IIRC the RFC can’t be described in a regex at all.