California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint
-
Yeah, good luck with that.
-
myname+edd1@gmail.com
myname+edd2@gmail.com
myname+edd3@gmail.com
myname+edd4@gmail.comPresumes, of course, they're not using some braindead regex that won't allow + in email addresses....
-
@pjh Yes, but CBA.
-
@pjh said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
Presumes, of course, they're not using some braindead regex that won't allow + in email addresses....
Most of them don't even allow things that aren't
[.](com|org|net)
. So many websites don't accept mylennyface@national.shitposting.agency
email.
-
@pie_flavor no
pope@va
email allowed?
-
@pie_flavor I have had a site that didn't allow my .id.au domain. This was for a site specifically designed for non-US people, though I guess it was for people pretending to be in the US but they could have made that clearer you should use a Gmail account or something!
-
@pie_flavor said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
@pjh said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
Presumes, of course, they're not using some braindead regex that won't allow + in email addresses....
Most of them don't even allow things that aren't
[.](com|org|net)
. So many websites don't accept mylennyface@national.shitposting.agency
email.email@me.com
Email@me.com
eMail@me.com
etc...- we all know how "meticulously" ( ) govt agencies handle this stuff.
- as far as I know, SQL's UNIQUE/PRIMARY KEY constraint is case sensitive
- select 0 from fucks_given
...
oh for f...ks sake, it depends on collation setting, doesn't it? well, let the betting start, then.
i bet it's still going to work, where else would the common 'if value = "yes" or value = "YES" or...' antipattern come from, right?
-
@ben_lubar said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
@pie_flavor no
pope@va
email allowed?There is no longer an
MX
(or any for that matter) record onva.
`dig` output
pjh@hpdesktop:~$ dig va. MX ; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> va. MX ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 43211 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;va. IN MX ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: va. 3588 IN SOA john.vatican.va. postmaster.vatican.va. 2017080701 14400 3600 120960 3600 ;; Query time: 28 msec ;; SERVER: 84.200.69.80#53(84.200.69.80) ;; WHEN: Wed Sep 13 09:39:34 BST 2017 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 91 pjh@hpdesktop:~$ dig va. A ; <<>> DiG 9.10.3-P4-Ubuntu <<>> va. A ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 56612 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION: ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;va. IN A ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: va. 3587 IN SOA john.vatican.va. postmaster.vatican.va. 2017080701 14400 3600 120960 3600 ;; Query time: 28 msec ;; SERVER: 84.200.69.80#53(84.200.69.80) ;; WHEN: Wed Sep 13 09:39:35 BST 2017 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 91
That said, there are 36 TLD's that do actually return
A
records:Changing what I did to request MX records instead is left as an exercise for the terminally bored.
-
@pie_flavor said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
@pjh said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
Presumes, of course, they're not using some braindead regex that won't allow + in email addresses....
Most of them don't even allow things that aren't
[.](com|org|net)
. So many websites don't accept mylennyface@national.shitposting.agency
email.My samsung account wouldn't let me register as
samsung@myname.com
. They were OK withSam.Sung@myname.com
though.I stopped receiving Kohls emails after a while because my email was
kohls@myname.com
. Once I changed it toname@myname.com
it started working again.
-
@dangeruss said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
My samsung account wouldn't let me register as samsung@myname.com. They were OK with Sam.Sung@myname.com though.
Why?
@dangeruss said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
I stopped receiving Kohls emails after a while because my email was kohls@myname.com. Once I changed it to name@myname.com it started working again.
Why??
Are these guys running the emails through the "don't put the company name in the password" checker? WTF?
-
@sloosecannon said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
Are these guys running the emails through the "don't put the company name in the password" checker? WTF?
Seems like it. Didn't we have a front page article years ago about a company who damn-near sued over this?
-
@dangeruss said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
I stopped receiving Kohls emails after a while because my email was kohls@myname.com. Once I changed it to name@myname.com it started working again.
I can't play World of Tanks anymore because they changed from login names to email addresses to log in but my email address doesn't pass their shitty broken validation logic. I can't request a password reset because they won't send it to what they consider an invalid email address. I can't lodge a support request because to do that, first I have to log in...
-
@dangeruss said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
My samsung account
-
@sloosecannon said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
Why??
Are these guys running the emails through the "don't put the company name in the password" checker? WTF?No it happily let me register with that email and I could continue to log in. I couldn't get them to send me any emails though. They probably have something like
if $emailAddress like '%kohls%' then #must be a test account, don't send the email.
-
@dangeruss said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
if $emailAddress like '%kohls%' then #must be a test account, don't send the email.
Either that, or "then it must be someone trying to fool us by bouncing mail to e.g. root@ourcompany.com".
In a few cases where email was required to access something (but clearly not to send me an email to access the thing, just to harvest my email to spam me later), I've used root@company.com, or even abuse@company.com, just to tell them to fuck off. I read that idea somewhere, a long time ago, so I can imagine that a "smart" dev also read that and implemented the corresponding test.
-
@sloosecannon said in California attempts to add a uniqueness constraint:
Are these guys running the emails through the "don't put the company name in the password" checker? WTF?
No - the username checker. Wouldn't want to be seen impersonating the company on an email server they don't control...