TIL (about the Dark Arts of HTML)
-
the point of porn
Is there a point in porn? I think I totally missed the clue in all of them
-
Is there a point in porn?
Yes: it protrudes from between the legs of the male performer ;)
-
Unless you're @Rhywden then you don't check what it looks like before hand, and find out later if your move gets rejected.
That made total sense but don't even start explaining that analogy to a non geek
-
Yes: it protrudes from between the legs of the male performer
These lesbians are doing it wrong then ...
-
-
Yes but don't bother checking that both of them are the same (that's just creating useless work for yourself).
-
Make the users type their E-Mail address
FTFYtwiceand copy-paste.
@boomzilla said:I'm tempted to move this stuff into a future FP discussion.
I don't know what functional programming has to do with this, but I agree this has veered seriously off-topic.
-
Where would you split it, though?
TAL about Skyrim fanfic got mixed up with the E-Mail sub-topic.
-
-
The correct domain for such cases is .invalid
-
The correct domain for such cases is .invalid
example.com
is reserved by IANA as a domain that can be used for testing without prior consent. It will also never be available for registration.
-
But something.invalid is obviously more appropriate because you're not using it as an example, you're using it as an invalid address.
Filed under: let the war begin
-
But something.invalid is obviously more appropriate because you're not using it as an example, you're using it as an invalid address.
Unless you want to test that you can actually send the e-mail
example.com
will resolve, and accept the e-mail (then blackhole it);.invalid
won't.
-
TIL in Sublime Text Alt+← and Alt+→ move between words within underscored and camel-case symbols.
How did I not know this?
-
Unless you want to test that you can actually send the e-mail example.com will resolve, and accept the e-mail (then blackhole it)
TIL
Wonder how this works. Is this something every MTA does, or IANA (or someone else) has a server somewhere receiving all this crap. Should also be fun to watch that server's logs.Interesting bit:
example.com has no MX record, so your SMTP server on the sending domain should bounce the message if configured as most SMTP servers are.
Also:
closed as off topic by MDMarra, Bart De Vos, Iain, MikeyB, Zoredache Nov 22 '11 at 17:52
What a bunch.
-
-
Must have changed then; could have sworn it used to be a black hole…
TIL
example.com
has no MX record
-
which while "valid" according to the email RFC, more email "validators" than i care to count fail it because the TLD is more than 3 characters (which was a safeish assumption until recently)
-
which was a safeish assumption until recently
I visit a site with
.info
TLD for more than 10 years (and it existed for years before that).Unless your definition of recently is mid-late 90s...
-
Even worse:
WHAT THE FUCK?!
-
hence the "ish" on the end of that safe.
emails with 4+ letter TLDs were not commonly available until recently.
or at least i havent seen them in any appreciable numbers until the last two years.
-
That's called a "Rejected Migration". They collect stats on them so you can see who thought that was a good idea and scold them accordingly.
-
TIL that we have a lynx sneaking around in our forest.
I also learned that our king, who is by law not allowed to have any opinions about anything, has finally found a safe topic: he dislikes tulips because they squeak.
-
Every bit of that is something that sounds like a plot line from some crappy short story set in the medieval area.
-
Or in the scandinavian era.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8822443.ece/alternates/w620/web-dutch-king-getty.jpg
You poor lads nagging about public education and health care.
-
which while "valid" according to the email RFC, more email "validators" than i care to count fail it because the TLD is more than 3 characters (which was a safeish assumption until recently)
BTW, this is why Rhwyden's stance makes a lot of sense. Adding client-side validation does more than help the user - it also bakes your current understanding of email addresses into the UI. The more "helpful" you get , the better the chance your enhanced UI is going to be a bug at some time in the future.If the UI enhancement is small, it probably isn't worth the maintenance load even if it seems like today's effort is worth it. As Raymond Chen tells us - every feature starts at minus 100 points. If typo-prevention doesn't make up the 100 points to get to zero, then the feature shouldn't be implemented.
-
The total extent of validation proposed though is that the address has an
@
in the middle, and the bit after it has at least one.
i.e. it will reject stuff that is obviously, ridiculously, ludicrously wrong. Other than that, it's quite permissive.
Was going to add '@accalia-spellaringly', but she's already got a full quiver in her chest today. Half of it from me
-
Or didn't attack the welfare state while sitting in a throne covered in gold and 5 meter high tapestry.
Why would he need any welfare? He can just sell his awesome gold throne and tapestry if times get lean...
-
BTW, this is why Rhwyden's stance makes a lot of sense.
sure. there's sense in it. validation of email input should start and end at "this thing looks like it's possibly something i could send an email address to"
if you really want to get anal retentive you could add that the domain part should have MX records. beyond that let the validation email catch email errors and provide a way for users to easily fix a typo'd email.
if you go any further than that in your validation i hate you.
TL;DR: i fall about half way between @Rhywden's opinion and those that advocate validate deliverability before accepting input. make sure it looks enough like an email address (has an @, non empty things on either sides and for anal retentives MX records for the domain part (making sure you assume raw IP addresses have MX records) and call it at that
TL;DR2: blah blah blah blah @accalia talks too much
-
-
<img src="but that's not important right now" height="trolol" width="lol">
-
This post is deleted!
-
TL;DR: i fall about half way between @Rhywden's opinion and those that advocate validate deliverability before accepting input. make sure it looks enough like an email address (has an @, non empty things on either sides and for anal retentives MX records for the domain part (making sure you assume raw IP addresses have MX records) and call it at that
Small addendum: MX records are not required, if an MX record does not exist the server is supposed to go for the A record and treat it as MX ;)
-
as i said that step is only for anal retentives.
perhaps better advice for anal retentives would be:
- don't be anal retentive
- don't be anal retentive
- don't be anal retentive
- don't be anal retentive
- don't be anal retentive
- if you must....
- make sure domain name resolves
- if domain name resolves accept it.
- optional: have warning toaster if there is no MX record as mail may not be deliverable if there are no MX records. still accept the domain
-
Well.. He did have a rant a couple of years back about that people need to work more. Somethink like "no fried sparrows will land in your mouth unless you apply yourself".
Said only a few months before he praised Brunei for being such a well-ordered and happy nation.
-
a throne covered in gold and 5 meter high tapestry.
He doesn't write that speech. Don't you see the prime ministers hand up his royal ass?
-
He can just sell his awesome gold throne and tapestry if times get lean
Government property ... Although that doesn't mean they are a poor bunch.
-
example.com is reserved by IANA as a domain that can be used for testing without prior consent. It will also never be available for registration.
Fun story: a few years ago I was doing an integration with a major payment gateway. Their testing environment was full of wtfs, including the fact that every developer in the world shared the same test account (there were notices everywhere saying don't change this or that because it affects everyone). All of the payment gateway response emails were set to go to {domain-that-has-not-been-registered}.com. So I bought that domain, set up the email account on it, and you wouldn't believe what kind of info I had access to.
It's a good thing I am not evil....
-
And checking for MX records is a bad idea. The destination address does not have to have such a record.
Any reasonable ESP would set it up though. Anyone hosting an email server simply relying on the
A
record for delivery probably has worse problems than not being recognised as a valid email destination.No . in whatever follows
proceedsthe @This one has already been covered else-topic and is an incorrect assumption...
http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/wtforum-take-ii/6792/205?u=pjh
Specifically user@[IPv6:2001:db8:1ff::a0b:dbd0] and pope@va are perfectly cromulent email addresses.
So, then it's a typo. Do you also intend to catch all the other infinite possibilities for typos?
No. Just the low-hanging fruit.
more email "validators" than i care to count fail it because the TLD is more than 3 characters (which was a safeish assumption until recently)
-
i don';t recall email addresses from those domains to be exactly common.
;-)
-
Specifically user@[IPv6:2001:db8:1ff::a0b:dbd0] and pope@va are perfectly cromulent email addresses.
Then pop a warning, but don't reject them. Perhaps have a "yep, I'm sure that's right" override kinda thing in case the Pope decides to register for your new
pornsite.
-
We can all agree that an email address needs a
@
, though, right?
Filed under: @
-
Time to submit a bug report!
-
We can all agree that an email address needs a @, though, right?
Strictly not, but you probably don't want to support any of the other alternatives.
-
Like X.400?
-
-
I also learned that our king, who is by law not allowed to have any opinions about anything, has finally found a safe topic: he dislikes tulips because they squeak.
You Euros and your wimpy monarchs. At least if you're going to have a king, he should still be leading you into battle.
-
Last time a swedish king tried that was in 1632. He also insisted on -- him being king and all -- having the best horse. Not a good combination.
-
Fun fact: Henry VIII of England was quite a jolly king before he had a jousting accident aged 44 , and became a lot more "headcutoffy".
TYAL